Hey Steve,
Quick question before I respond to some of what you wrote in your last post. What are one or two of the translations that you use? I am pretty certain that one of them is not the ESV (English Standard Version).
I'll try to respond when I can.
Abundant joy in Christ,
Haas
Is Open Theism Heresy?
Hi Haas,
I am pretty satisfied with the NKJV, and have a lot of respect for the KJV and the NASB as well. These all follow the "formal equivalence" philosophy of translation. There may be other translations equally good out there, but most of the newer ones follow the "dynamic equivalence" philosophy, which means the translator inserts his own theological opinion whenever he thinks we are not bright enough to draw the same conclusions from a more literal reading of the text. Most new translations insult the reader in this manner, treating them like children, in my opinion. However, they sell a lot of their products, so perhaps they have read their market accurately.
I am pretty satisfied with the NKJV, and have a lot of respect for the KJV and the NASB as well. These all follow the "formal equivalence" philosophy of translation. There may be other translations equally good out there, but most of the newer ones follow the "dynamic equivalence" philosophy, which means the translator inserts his own theological opinion whenever he thinks we are not bright enough to draw the same conclusions from a more literal reading of the text. Most new translations insult the reader in this manner, treating them like children, in my opinion. However, they sell a lot of their products, so perhaps they have read their market accurately.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Cool. I like the NASB and don't have a problem using NKJV or KJV.Hi Haas,
I am pretty satisfied with the NKJV, and have a lot of respect for the KJV and the NASB as well.
In Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve,
I have printed up your post and it is over 3 pages long. I want to start to interact with some of it here.
You wrote:
Did you not choose your words carefully here or do you really think that your above quote is the Reformed position of total depravity?
In Christ,
Haas
I have printed up your post and it is over 3 pages long. I want to start to interact with some of it here.
You wrote:
pulling from the above quote:I sometimes am forced wonder, when confronted with the Calvinists' adamant insistence that all men are totally evil, whether they are revealing more about themselves and what they see in their own hearts than what can be observed in the real world, or in scripture.
Honestly Steve, how in the world could you get that from the two dozen or so Calvinists you have read? I understand you don't believe the Bible teaches total depravity, but you have either misrepresented it here out of ignorance or on purpose. Total depravity does not equal totally evil.when confronted with the Calvinists' adamant insistence that all men are totally evil
Did you not choose your words carefully here or do you really think that your above quote is the Reformed position of total depravity?
In Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve,
You wrote:
Also,
One more post after this and I am done for the night.
In Christ,
Haas
You wrote:
No, my view from Scripture would be that “righteous” acts apart from the true righteousness found in Christ Jesus don’t do a sinner any good from an eternal standpoint. Can any sinner stand in the presence of God without the righteousness of His son? These are two very different things.Your theology requires you to judge all of these people as shams and hypocrites,
Also,
No. Again, this is a misrepresentation.However, Calvinists imagine that all sinners are equally benighted, hard-hearted and abandoned to unrestrained hatred of God--when, in fact, no passage in scripture declares such a thing,
One more post after this and I am done for the night.
In Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Actually, I'd like clarification from Calvinist on this as well. Since Calvinist like to quote from Romans 1, 3 and Genesis 6 for example:bighaasdog wrote:Honestly Steve, how in the world could you get that from the two dozen or so Calvinists you have read? I understand you don't believe the Bible teaches total depravity, but you have either misrepresented it here out of ignorance or on purpose. Total depravity does not equal totally evil.when confronted with the Calvinists' adamant insistence that all men are totally evil
Did you not choose your words carefully here or do you really think that your above quote is the Reformed position of total depravity?
In Christ,
Haas
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Is this not one of the verses used in this debate about man? How is it that one can read about the depravity mentioned there and say these mentioned are not evil?
Then in Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin."
Put it together. You either have God's grace or you are faithless, a sinner, speaking lies from the womb, storing up wrath for the day of judgment, etc. In a word, evil.
Are you saying that Calvinist don't take this view of man? That man is pretty good apart from weak faith? It seems like the best argument that can be mustered is "that's not what we think".
How about a different approach to this. State what you do think and prove it from the text.
In all the time that I've really craved to hear good Reformed interaction against "Arminian" points this is what always seems to happen. Mark's post on the last page was an attempt at that. He pointed out scriptures and gave his view. Steve responded to his points and Mark decided it's not worth the trouble. But honestly Mark, you just re-used the some 'ol arguments that were used in other threads here that have been contested at the very least and refuted at best. Stating them again doesn't help you make your case.
So some sinners can see some light? Some can understand God a little bit? Or are they totally blind? If they are not totally blind then how did they muster some measure of goodness? If goodness can only be measured by imputed righteousness by God before faith, then how is Steve's statement false?bighaasdog wrote:No. Again, this is a misrepresentation.However, Calvinists imagine that all sinners are equally benighted, hard-hearted and abandoned to unrestrained hatred of God--when, in fact, no passage in scripture declares such a thing,
One more post after this and I am done for the night.
In Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Hi Haas,
Sure, I am aware that Calvinists distinguish between "total depravity" and "absolute depravity." In that awareness, I chose not to say that Calvinists teach that man is "absolutely" evil. I stuck with "totally" evil (though I can't see a dime's worth of difference between the two terms...can you?). To me, the words "depraved" and "evil" have essentially the same meaning. Thus, a belief in "total depravity" and a belief in "total evil" are equivalent. If depravity and evil are not synonyms, then I chose the wrong term.
Though Calvinists cannot help but admit that some sinners are worse than others, they do not adequately harmonize this conviction with their belief that there is no residual good whatsoever in man's unregenerate state (e.g., the continual citing of Romans 3). They cannot allow that an unregenerate man might have some residual good in him, some vestige of that divine spark originally placed in humankind, since such an admission would dangerously open the door to the possibility that this residual good may find some affinity with the righteous judgments of God, and lead the man to wish to repent.
If a sinner may choose to be less of a sinner than he might otherwise have been, as Calvinists seem to admit to be true, then has he something to "boast" of in contrast with another sinner who chooses to go all the way bad? Is this not the very argument Calvinists make against Arminianism—namely, that if one man can choose to believe when another does not, that this makes the first man more virtuous, and gives him occasion for boasting?
The irony of this Calvinistic confusion is that the Arminian is on Paul's side, in declaring that "believing" is not grounds for boasting, even though it is something we do (Rom.3:27/4:4-5), whereas, the moral sinner, who has truly made a better moral choice than the sinner who makes worse moral choices would seemingly truly have something to congratulate himself for—though "not before God" (Rom.4:2).
Calvinists have a slippery system. Whenever they get caught in an absurdity, they simply create a new term, and pretend that there is actually a distinct reality lying behind the terminology.
For example, when they say that God's will is always done, or else He can not be sovereign, and then we ask how sin, which is declared in scripture to be contrary to His will can exist, they simply create two wills in God, by coining a new word. In addition to the "revealed will" of God, there is also said to be a "secret will" of God (Might we ask, if something like a "will" is not revealed, but is secret, then how does anyone know it is there, so as to create a name for it?).
The words seem to provide an escape for the inconsistency, but words cannot do this unless there is a reality that those words describe.
A similar case exists when Calvinists affirm the doctrine of "total depravity." If we say to them, "But are you not then saying that all men are totally evil?" they retort: "Well, we did not use the term 'absolute depravity.' That is a different concept." Really? And which dictionaries differentiate between the concepts of "total" and "absolute" (the dictionaries I consult use each of these terms in the definition of the other)? I see this as nothing more than another verbal ploy which allows Calvinists to say any number of irresponsible and unbiblical things about universal human depravity, and then, when confronted with the reality of degrees of sinfulness in various sinners, to appeal to a meaningless semantical distinction, which then allows them to admit that, while there is nothing good in any unregenerate man, yet some sinners have less of this absolute absence of good than do others!
Yes, Haas. I have read the Calvinists' disclaimers and dodges. They are found in all of their books. In my judgment, the writers count heavily on their readers to neither know how to exegete scripture nor how to think clearly. Forgive me for being honest. In my opinion, the Body of Christ would benefit greatly if there were more spectators admitting that the emperor has no clothes.
When I wrote, "However, Calvinists imagine that all sinners are equally benighted, hard-hearted and abandoned to unrestrained hatred of God...",
You wrote:
"No. Again, this is a misrepresentation."
Is James White not a good representative Calvinist? When he objected to my referring to downtrodden and helpless sinners as needing assistance and mercy from God, he mocked this picture of sinners, saying that they were all (as I have now quoted twice previously) "standing on the parapet of hell, screaming out their eternal hatred for God." Dr. White gave no scripture to support this absurd stereotype, but, from my experience with most Calvinists, I believe they would have said, "Amen" to his tirade. Now, am I misrepresenting the view of Dr. White—or was he the one misrepresenting his view? Do Calvinists mean what comes out of their mouths about their beliefs, or shall we assume that they have a secondary "secret" belief which is actually the opposite of their "revealed" beliefs?
This is another slippery thing about Calvinists. Whenever you quote their own words back to them, they say, "You don't understand! You misrepresent!"
Well, if, after their books have been read and their public debates been listened to, Calvinists still have not been able to make their position intelligible to a man of average intelligence, then it sounds like either: 1) they don't know the right words to express what is in their heads; or 2) they are deliberately misrepresenting their own views in their statements; or 3) they really are saying what they mean, but lack the courage of their convictions, when their words are quoted back to them. Does a fourth option exist?
Sure, I am aware that Calvinists distinguish between "total depravity" and "absolute depravity." In that awareness, I chose not to say that Calvinists teach that man is "absolutely" evil. I stuck with "totally" evil (though I can't see a dime's worth of difference between the two terms...can you?). To me, the words "depraved" and "evil" have essentially the same meaning. Thus, a belief in "total depravity" and a belief in "total evil" are equivalent. If depravity and evil are not synonyms, then I chose the wrong term.
Though Calvinists cannot help but admit that some sinners are worse than others, they do not adequately harmonize this conviction with their belief that there is no residual good whatsoever in man's unregenerate state (e.g., the continual citing of Romans 3). They cannot allow that an unregenerate man might have some residual good in him, some vestige of that divine spark originally placed in humankind, since such an admission would dangerously open the door to the possibility that this residual good may find some affinity with the righteous judgments of God, and lead the man to wish to repent.
If a sinner may choose to be less of a sinner than he might otherwise have been, as Calvinists seem to admit to be true, then has he something to "boast" of in contrast with another sinner who chooses to go all the way bad? Is this not the very argument Calvinists make against Arminianism—namely, that if one man can choose to believe when another does not, that this makes the first man more virtuous, and gives him occasion for boasting?
The irony of this Calvinistic confusion is that the Arminian is on Paul's side, in declaring that "believing" is not grounds for boasting, even though it is something we do (Rom.3:27/4:4-5), whereas, the moral sinner, who has truly made a better moral choice than the sinner who makes worse moral choices would seemingly truly have something to congratulate himself for—though "not before God" (Rom.4:2).
Calvinists have a slippery system. Whenever they get caught in an absurdity, they simply create a new term, and pretend that there is actually a distinct reality lying behind the terminology.
For example, when they say that God's will is always done, or else He can not be sovereign, and then we ask how sin, which is declared in scripture to be contrary to His will can exist, they simply create two wills in God, by coining a new word. In addition to the "revealed will" of God, there is also said to be a "secret will" of God (Might we ask, if something like a "will" is not revealed, but is secret, then how does anyone know it is there, so as to create a name for it?).
The words seem to provide an escape for the inconsistency, but words cannot do this unless there is a reality that those words describe.
A similar case exists when Calvinists affirm the doctrine of "total depravity." If we say to them, "But are you not then saying that all men are totally evil?" they retort: "Well, we did not use the term 'absolute depravity.' That is a different concept." Really? And which dictionaries differentiate between the concepts of "total" and "absolute" (the dictionaries I consult use each of these terms in the definition of the other)? I see this as nothing more than another verbal ploy which allows Calvinists to say any number of irresponsible and unbiblical things about universal human depravity, and then, when confronted with the reality of degrees of sinfulness in various sinners, to appeal to a meaningless semantical distinction, which then allows them to admit that, while there is nothing good in any unregenerate man, yet some sinners have less of this absolute absence of good than do others!
Yes, Haas. I have read the Calvinists' disclaimers and dodges. They are found in all of their books. In my judgment, the writers count heavily on their readers to neither know how to exegete scripture nor how to think clearly. Forgive me for being honest. In my opinion, the Body of Christ would benefit greatly if there were more spectators admitting that the emperor has no clothes.
When I wrote, "However, Calvinists imagine that all sinners are equally benighted, hard-hearted and abandoned to unrestrained hatred of God...",
You wrote:
"No. Again, this is a misrepresentation."
Is James White not a good representative Calvinist? When he objected to my referring to downtrodden and helpless sinners as needing assistance and mercy from God, he mocked this picture of sinners, saying that they were all (as I have now quoted twice previously) "standing on the parapet of hell, screaming out their eternal hatred for God." Dr. White gave no scripture to support this absurd stereotype, but, from my experience with most Calvinists, I believe they would have said, "Amen" to his tirade. Now, am I misrepresenting the view of Dr. White—or was he the one misrepresenting his view? Do Calvinists mean what comes out of their mouths about their beliefs, or shall we assume that they have a secondary "secret" belief which is actually the opposite of their "revealed" beliefs?
This is another slippery thing about Calvinists. Whenever you quote their own words back to them, they say, "You don't understand! You misrepresent!"
Well, if, after their books have been read and their public debates been listened to, Calvinists still have not been able to make their position intelligible to a man of average intelligence, then it sounds like either: 1) they don't know the right words to express what is in their heads; or 2) they are deliberately misrepresenting their own views in their statements; or 3) they really are saying what they mean, but lack the courage of their convictions, when their words are quoted back to them. Does a fourth option exist?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
You wrote:
First Paul.....
And David.......
And Job.......
Recognizing the seriousness of sin is a must. Speaking of the seriousness of sin is not gossiping about the world and sinners that we don't know. We clearly know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
In regards to the moral decay of this generation as compared to generations past:
All for now. Tomorrow is the first day of school and a busy week ahead.
Abundant joy in Christ,
Haas
You wrote:
Maybe we should look how three men in the Scriputre viewed their own sin before their Holy God (we could certainly look at more).I sometimes am forced wonder, when confronted with the Calvinists' adamant insistence that all men are totally evil, whether they are revealing more about themselves and what they see in their own hearts than what can be observed in the real world, or in scripture.
First Paul.....
Romans 7:13-25 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
And David.......
Psalm 51 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Psalm 51
1 Have mercy upon me, O God,
According to Your lovingkindness;
According to the multitude of Your tender mercies,
Blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me.
4 Against You, You only, have I sinned,
And done this evil in Your sight—
That You may be found just when You speak,
And blameless when You judge.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
6 Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts,
And in the hidden part You will make me to know wisdom.
7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8 Make me hear joy and gladness,
That the bones You have broken may rejoice.
9 Hide Your face from my sins,
And blot out all my iniquities.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God,
And renew a steadfast spirit within me.
11 Do not cast me away from Your presence,
And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.
12 Restore to me the joy of Your salvation,
And uphold me by Your generous Spirit.
13 Then I will teach transgressors Your ways,
And sinners shall be converted to You.
14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,
The God of my salvation,
And my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness.
15 O Lord, open my lips,
And my mouth shall show forth Your praise.
16 For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it;
You do not delight in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise.
18 Do good in Your good pleasure to Zion;
Build the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then You shall be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
With burnt offering and whole burnt offering;
Then they shall offer bulls on Your altar.
And Job.......
Job 42 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Job 42
1 Then Job answered the LORD and said:
2 “I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.
3 You asked, ‘Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 Listen, please, and let me speak;
You said, ‘I will question you, and you shall answer Me.’
5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You.
6 Therefore I abhor myself,
And repent in dust and ashes.”
Recognizing the seriousness of sin is a must. Speaking of the seriousness of sin is not gossiping about the world and sinners that we don't know. We clearly know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
In regards to the moral decay of this generation as compared to generations past:
Ecclesiastes 1:8-10 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
8All things are wearisome;
Man is not able to tell it.
(A)The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor is the ear filled with hearing.
9(B)That which has been is that which will be,
And that which has been done is that which will be done.
So there is nothing new under the sun.
10Is there anything of which one might say,
"See this, it is new"?
Already it has existed for ages
Which were before us.
All for now. Tomorrow is the first day of school and a busy week ahead.
Abundant joy in Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Haas,
You are certainly right. In comparison with God, our sins are very black and disgusting. The most spiritual men (like those you quoted) see this the most clearly of all. But are you not aware what the topic of this discussion is? We are not arguing whether all men (even the best of them) are quite evil. This is universally acknowledged, so scriptures that tell us this do not contribute to the argument for either side.
What is at issue is not whether all men sin, nor whether all men deserve hell because their sins are horrendous, but it is the entirely separate question of whether men have any ability to repent and believe. We all know that some sinners, without becoming Christians, do hate some of their sins, and make great efforts to become free from them. We also know that some unregenerate men make a transition from atheism to general theism. No one is arguing that these measures are adequate to save a sinner. But some of us believe that this shows a capacity in unregenerate men to detest some sin and to modify their beliefs somewhat in the right direction, making us wonder how any theology can claim that these men could not, by extension of the same type of sentiment, come to hate all sin and to believe all the right things about God and Jesus. This is the only point at issue in the present discussion, and no Calvinist has bothered to make an exegetical, scriptural case for his position.
I truly was not hoping to be proven correct in my assertion that Calvinists do not seem to think clearly about the scriptures, and I would be delighted to have a Calvinist show up here and prove me incorrect in this assessment. I take no pleasure in the blindness of others, and actually take delight in hearing a strong argument that challenges me to rethink my position. I would be genuinely exhilarated by having a genuine exegetical argument laid before me disproving my beliefs. You may not think so, but I would actually admit my error, if such proof was presented (I have done so many times before).
But if our Calvinist friends here think that any of the scriptures they have presented have anything to say about the issue at controversy here, I am afraid that they are proving my point about the inability to think clearly. I urge you to look at the words and the sentences in the passages quoted, and ask yourself, "Does this verse have anything to contribute to the support of a doctrine of man's inability to repent and believe the gospel?"
I said earlier that Calvinists will not have a cake-walk here, as they do among fellow Calvinists, parroting traditional proof-texts without exposition, and then pretending that they have made a case. I guess this works well enough for them in their own crowd. I don't know if this is because most Calvinists have equal reluctance and inability to see what a verse actually says, or, alternatively, if some of them can see it, but don't wish to hurt the feelings of their teachers by pointing it out.
In any case, weak argumentation certainly seems to get a free ride in the Calvinist camp. There are no free rides here. I am not saying that people holding my opinions are necessarily correct, but we are interested in truth, and will not settle for assertions that lack robust exegetical support.
You are certainly right. In comparison with God, our sins are very black and disgusting. The most spiritual men (like those you quoted) see this the most clearly of all. But are you not aware what the topic of this discussion is? We are not arguing whether all men (even the best of them) are quite evil. This is universally acknowledged, so scriptures that tell us this do not contribute to the argument for either side.
What is at issue is not whether all men sin, nor whether all men deserve hell because their sins are horrendous, but it is the entirely separate question of whether men have any ability to repent and believe. We all know that some sinners, without becoming Christians, do hate some of their sins, and make great efforts to become free from them. We also know that some unregenerate men make a transition from atheism to general theism. No one is arguing that these measures are adequate to save a sinner. But some of us believe that this shows a capacity in unregenerate men to detest some sin and to modify their beliefs somewhat in the right direction, making us wonder how any theology can claim that these men could not, by extension of the same type of sentiment, come to hate all sin and to believe all the right things about God and Jesus. This is the only point at issue in the present discussion, and no Calvinist has bothered to make an exegetical, scriptural case for his position.
I truly was not hoping to be proven correct in my assertion that Calvinists do not seem to think clearly about the scriptures, and I would be delighted to have a Calvinist show up here and prove me incorrect in this assessment. I take no pleasure in the blindness of others, and actually take delight in hearing a strong argument that challenges me to rethink my position. I would be genuinely exhilarated by having a genuine exegetical argument laid before me disproving my beliefs. You may not think so, but I would actually admit my error, if such proof was presented (I have done so many times before).
But if our Calvinist friends here think that any of the scriptures they have presented have anything to say about the issue at controversy here, I am afraid that they are proving my point about the inability to think clearly. I urge you to look at the words and the sentences in the passages quoted, and ask yourself, "Does this verse have anything to contribute to the support of a doctrine of man's inability to repent and believe the gospel?"
I said earlier that Calvinists will not have a cake-walk here, as they do among fellow Calvinists, parroting traditional proof-texts without exposition, and then pretending that they have made a case. I guess this works well enough for them in their own crowd. I don't know if this is because most Calvinists have equal reluctance and inability to see what a verse actually says, or, alternatively, if some of them can see it, but don't wish to hurt the feelings of their teachers by pointing it out.
In any case, weak argumentation certainly seems to get a free ride in the Calvinist camp. There are no free rides here. I am not saying that people holding my opinions are necessarily correct, but we are interested in truth, and will not settle for assertions that lack robust exegetical support.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Steve,
In Christ,
Haas
I understand this. I wanted to make sure I understood your position on sin in general before moving on.What is at issue is not whether all men sin, nor whether all men deserve hell because their sins are horrendous, but whether men have any ability to repent and believe. This is the only point at issue in the present discussion, and no Calvinist has bothered to make a scriptural case for their position.
In Christ,
Haas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: