No, you're being juvenile bro. Very callow.No not really.........the truth.....why do you think what you believe is called Calvinism?
No, you're being juvenile bro. Very callow.No not really.........the truth.....why do you think what you believe is called Calvinism?
So you understand "all?" When did this glorious event transpire for you? And you now understand the differing contexts? Nothing I said was mouthy or false, looks like that's your job. Care to address what I actually said, or are you still stuck on Juvenile Blvd with your callow behavior?
Bro, you're adding to Scripture to arrive at your conclusions with your one of the wives must have been corrupted. That is called desperation.Sorry gentlemen. Had work. Only have a few minutes now.
Genesis 6:4 There were [b]giants on the earth in those days, AND ALSO AFTERWARD, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
There are those that believe there were a second incursion of fallen angels. I don't think so.
So the Nephillim show up after the flood. I think it's fair speculation to say that one of Noah's son's wives at least were corrupted.
Absurd to think God had Israel wipe out every man, woman, child and baby and animal because of sins that we ALL commit, INCLUDING the Israelites themselves.
No worries your tribe will be here to cheer you on in your carnal ways. Now, care to show us one of those posts where this happened? I'll be waiting here for your next mouthy and demeaning comment. Go for it, it's you.You should take a look in the mirror....seems I read people calling you out all the time for mouthy, uncalled for remarks that elevate yourself and condemn others....serious!
That's taking an awful lot of liberties and stretching the text pretty darn far.
I don't see a contradiction at all. ALL are going to physically die, but Paul makes the point that spiritual death comes to those under the Law. At one point he was not under the Law, and was therefore spiritually alive. How the heck can we say he thought he was alive as a good Pharisee, when that life was ALL ABOUT keeping the Law!?
I don't see a contradiction at all. ALL are going to physically die, but Paul makes the point that spiritual death comes to those under the Law. At one point he was not under the Law, and was therefore spiritually alive. How the heck can we say he thought he was alive as a good Pharisee, when that life was ALL ABOUT keeping the Law!?
No, you're being juvenile bro. Very callow.
No worries your tribe will be here to cheer you on in your carnal ways. Now, care to show us one of those posts where this happened? I'll be waiting here for your next mouthy and demeaning comment. Go for it, it's you.
Show me where I stated I'm the only one who understands it? Or are you going to finally man up and speak truth?
My friend, where I have said there will be babies in hell? Please quote it where I have.
I think 2 Samuel 12 is quite the stretch to say that David knew his child was in heaven. He was grieving the loss of his child and was wanting to die with him, is how I see it.
Is he blame shifting and denying his own sin again?All one has to do is read the last three or four pages of this thread.....and even the post you just made to PennEd
For the record, I do not believe babies enter into eternity in the state of being a baby. There is something more for some of you callow ones to tear me into pieces over.![]()
Come on now, we both know you're incapable of using Biblical context in your responses. Just melded together out of context partial texts. It's shameful handling of the Word of God on your part, as per 1 Corinthians 2:14-17 and 4:2.Answer the question for all...Why is the doctrine you follow called Calvinism? Simple....why?
Here’s the thing my friend, the Bible does not explicitly state one way or the other about their eternal state.
If God commanded babies of the enemy nations to be killed, it appears to me He views them much differently than we do.
All any have to do is read page after page after page of your posts in this thread and they'll see you and how you speak to many.All one has to do is read the last three or four pages of this thread.....and even the post you just made to PennEd
Come on now, we both know you're incapable of using Biblical context in your responses. Just melded together out of context partial texts. It's shameful handling of the Word of God on your part, as per 1 Corinthians 2:14-17 and 4:2.
Then of course your mouthy accusations, right?
You do realize your teaching is hand me down Finneyism, correct? Or are you unaware of his teaching being yours and of when it came on the scene in church history some 150 years or so ago?
Funny thing is you cannot refute one tenet of so called Calvinism when Scripture is used in it's proper context. And you're not interested in context. We are both aware of this.
Who is being referred to in Romans 12:3? You used it in context of the world at large to support your decisional regeneration gospel. Is it referring to the saved or all in the world as you misused it? I want to see you correct yourself on this, and/or if you man up and own your error with that specific Scripture.
Or you can be you and be snide and deny it. I'm betting on the carnal latter.
All any have to do is read page after page after page of your posts in this thread and they'll see you and how you speak to many.