10/14/2016 04:45:53 pm
I can only comment a section at a time and very briefly.
Reply
Christian Anarchist
10/15/2016 09:04:36 pm
I never said I was only going to quote and cite the bible.
Reply
10/15/2016 10:22:07 pm
I stand corrected. My apologies
Christian Anarchist
10/16/2016 08:43:16 am
No, my beliefs are grounded in the scriptures and those creeds are grounded in the scriptures.The only reason the creeds are quoted is to help provide definitions since some critics I have encountered said that Calvinism needs to have official definitions and that Calvinists have redefined what Calvinism is. I am at least laying use of definitions so that the terms and their concept can be the same thing that we are talking about I hope.
Reply
10/16/2016 10:27:13 am
Respectfully, that's not how you're coming across from my perspective. If it was truly a matter of sola scripture, I would think one would start from the Biblical statements in Scripture to support their position, however, you started with the creed and from there, seemed to try and support the creedal statement by Scripture, which is a bit backwards to me. But I guess that's just a matter of study method and I don't think we need to necessarily debate on the merits of it. However, at your convenience, read what I have written thus far and give me your thoughts. Thanks.
Christian Anarchist
10/18/2016 08:50:18 am
Note the keywords you used were "From my perspective." I only quote the creeds to provide a definition. Note the creeds affirm Limited Atonement, but instead of a creed, I used Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology instead of creeds. My main use of the creeds in this article is to provide a definition. Even then, the creeds, if you read them, are bounded by the scriptures and have scriptural prooftexts when you read the actual creeds.
Reply
10/18/2016 11:32:59 am
That's the problem; "the creeds affirm Limited Atonement," not the Bible (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2). And you do start your opinion by asking the question, "What does the Bible say?" ...no?
Christian Anarchist
10/22/2016 06:51:11 pm
You haven't read my exposition carefully then concerning the introductory paragraph to Limited Atonement then.
Reply
10/22/2016 09:46:52 pm
Apparently not. I only got to p.22. I thought you'd be able to answer the challenges I posted thus far to your arguments. 10/14/2016 07:49:39 pm
Belief in "unconditional election" (UE) makes any talk of moderate or extreme Calvinists nonsense.
Reply
10/19/2016 08:34:38 am
Some corrections to Re: comment 10/14/2016 07:49:39 pm
Reply
10/15/2016 06:53:18 pm
On "unconditional election" (UE) continued...
Reply
Nelson Banuchi
10/15/2016 06:56:04 pm
Correction: I wrote that the parable narrative seems to have 3 parts, while I actually entered 5. Thanks.
Reply
10/23/2016 10:40:38 am
I stated, "And for those who reject the call, it is not because they are not "elect" or God had never intended their salvation and, as such, "they cannot," but because they "will not."
Reply
4/23/2017 12:58:18 am
The article list many verses, but such verses do not exist in a vacuum and have a context. I'm guessing the author thinks their use of such verses agrees with the context, but I disagree.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
WelcomeFeel free to browse through the blog. Archives
April 2017
Categories |