Calvinism is Gospel !

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bible_Locket said:
Reason leaves the room in the wake of the charge, Calvinism, when the Bible scriptures relating to God's predestination of all things is discussed.


It's a shame. Because it is God saying these things first.

www.studylight.org

General Search for 'gods predestination of all things' - New American Standard Bible - StudyLight.org

General Search for 'gods predestination of all things' within 'New American Standard Bible' on StudyLight.org
www.studylight.org www.studylight.org

1Corinthians 15
For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is clear that this excludes the Father who put all things in subjection to Him.
Click to expand...

From my perspective, being in error of magnifying our creator, isn't the worst position to be in. lol

At the end of the day, God will judge us all, and that's really the big picture. Whether we are predestined for eternal life, or death, it's all in God's hands. And that brings me peace. It's all in God's hands!
 
  • Like
Reactions: -Lutheran
kinda said:
How can someone take the I out of faith, might be impossible.
Click to expand...
The same way Jesus instructed his followers to pray. There's no I, me, or myself in the disciples' prayer (singular personal pronoun).
Consider what others here demonstrate; no need to go on a crusade, only observe and learn.
Every man sounds like a Calvinist on his knees.
Shame, some here picked apart the hymn Amazing Grace.
What does that tell you about them?
Thank God I'm not like that man!
I tend not to engage in threads or participate publicly.
I emphasize most will tell you all you need to know about them (check those pronouns).
Just listen.
 
kinda said:
From my perspective, being in error of magnifying our creator, isn't the worst position to be in. lol

At the end of the day, God will judge us all, and that's really the big picture. Whether we are predestined for eternal life, or death, it's all in God's hands. And that brings me peace. It's all in God's hands!
Click to expand...
It is.Obviously.
If God didn't want us to have insight, he wouldn't have inspired us to deliver his message to the world.

Leaving it at that,as in, it's all in God's hands,opinions matter little if at all, as far as Christians, is a cop out.

Leaving it as all up to God no matter what, negates prayers,and worship.

Why does the only power of and within creation require tiny humans he cursed after first creating them perfect, to meet his expectations? Obedience, worship, etc...?

People rarely ask the question.

Why was the Bible created?

We rarely face the answer.
Control.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: -Lutheran
Anchorite said:
God did not create robots or puppets.

He created humans with freedom to choose and accountability for those choices.

God offers salvation in the gospel message. You can accept it or reject it.

You are not pre-determined to be saved or damned.
Click to expand...
That's all true if you rewrite Scripture.
Anchorite said:
When you are judged, you will not be able to say you rejected salvation because that’s what you were pre-determined to do against your will.
Click to expand...
How naive.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: -Lutheran
-Lutheran said:
The same way Jesus instructed his followers to pray. There's no I, me, or myself in the disciples' prayer (singular personal pronoun).
Consider what others here demonstrate; no need to go on a crusade, only observe and learn.
Every man sounds like a Calvinist on his knees.
Shame, some here picked apart the hymn Amazing Grace.
What does that tell you about them?
Thank God I'm not like that man!
I tend not to engage in threads or participate publicly.
I emphasize most will tell you all you need to know about them (check those pronouns).
Just listen.
Click to expand...
You rarely participate?
But you actively laugh at people here using the laugh likes emoji.

That says everything about you.
Go ahead,😂 and show us again who you are.

Maybe believing in the theology of Martin Luther is the cause.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: -Lutheran
kinda said:
Ahh. You would of appreciated a conversation with @JamesTheLesserLesser , he is around here some where maybe. He likes using those big words. lol
Click to expand...
The patristics in the early church (Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, John of Damascus), to the big names in the reformation (Luther, Calvin), to contemporary (Sproul, MacArthur,) have talked this issue to death. I have nothing to say that they haven't. Soteriology is a neat topic, but not something I really like to discuss out in the open. Egos and ecclesiastical barriers get in the way, and people begin making enemies of one another based on interpretations and viewpoints.

I believe that we are both responsible for our actions and that God knows all. That is where I stop. It seems like a good place, honestly.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: -Lutheran
JamesTheLesserLesser said:
The patristics in the early church (Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, John of Damascus), to the big names in the reformation (Luther, Calvin), to contemporary (Sproul, MacArthur,) have talked this issue to death. I have nothing to say that they haven't. Soteriology is a neat topic, but not something I really like to discuss out in the open. Egos and ecclesiastical barriers get in the way, and people begin making enemies of one another based on interpretations and viewpoints.

I believe that we are both responsible for our actions and that God knows all. That is where I stop. It seems like a good place, honestly.
Click to expand...
Can't even talk soteriology 101 here (Hebrews 6:1)?
I'm not arguging against you!
 
brightfame52 said:
Hi, can you please clarify this statement. Are you saying regeneration for a child comes by being properly instructed ?
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting that, "regeneration for a child comes by being properly instructed" alone, because God alone changes a person’s heart without human assistance. Human instruction, while necessary and commanded, is merely an outward instrument, not the producing cause of spiritual life.

A child of five, if properly instructed, can as readily be regenerated as an adult," emphasizing that children possess a full capacity to receive salvation while remaining entirely dependent on God's grace.
Regeneration is a "spiritual resurrection". Just as a dead body cannot respond to instructions, a spiritually dead soul cannot be educated into life. God must first grant the new birth.

While instruction cannot cause regeneration, the child's parents are called to faithfully instruct a 5-year-old so that when the Holy Spirit moves, the child has the truth ready to be acted upon through saving faith. If a 5-year-old can grasp the concept of their own sin and bad behaviour, they can grasp their need for God's forgiveness and grace. God can regenerate a person in infancy, at age 5, or on their deathbed.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: brightfame52 and -Lutheran
pinebeach said:
You said you took it down but I guess you don't remember and I don't really care. What I do care about, is how you misinterpreted my post to seeminly say that I thought God was not in the Bible....rather than the word 'god'.

whatever at this point because the circles are making me dizzy 👻
Click to expand...

Well, you should ask for clarification before assuming what I seem to mean, because all I meant was that there are many synonyms for God in Scripture, including the word "Word". I apologize for your misunderstanding my play on words.
 
  • Sad
  • Haha
Reactions: pinebeach and -Lutheran
Bible_Locket said:
No she doesn't.
Why? If that website was that of GWH, he would have linked his post to it. But he didn't.

Oops, belongs to GWH.
Click to expand...

FYI, I do not mention my website in posts any longer, because I was warned that was against the rules.
Although I created the website and add to it weekly, I invite anyone including AI to use it as a resource.
I also invite constructive suggestions regarding corrections or additions.
You should ask questions instead of making false accusations.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: -Lutheran

GWH said:
My theology is founded on MFW that freely loves truth (2Thes. 2:10), whereas yours is founded on TULIP that blasphemes the Lord's omnilove (John 3:16, 1John 4:7-12, Rom. 5:8, Matt. 5:44&48, Gal. 5:6&14, Eph. 3:17b-19, Eph. 5:2, 1Tim. 2:3-4) and righteousness aka justness (2Thes. 1:6a, cf. Rom. 3:25-26 & 9:14, Deut. 32:4, Psa. 36:6, Luke 11:42, Rev. 15:3). You do so at your own risk, because you have been reproved in love (Eph. 4:15, Gal. 1:6-9).

Re "You argue that because the sheep are described as continuously "hearing" (akouousin, present active indicative) and "following" (akolouthousin, present active indicative), their security is conditional upon that continuous human action.":

No, I agree with those who know Greek teaching that faithers are described as continuously believing per tenses including the present active indicative and the present progressive/persevering, and I think it would be helpful for truthseekers if they would compile a list of scriptures using such tenses.

I already explained how to harmonize John 17:9 with 3:16, Matt. 28:19-20, etc., so let us not loop.

The astute will note how you bend into a pretzel rather than accept the plain meaning of the verses I cited:
Gen. 3:6, Deut. 30:19, Josh. 24:15, 2Chron. 7:14, Matt. 4:17, 7:7, 23:37, John 3:16, 6:39, Acts 2:38, 16:31, 28:27, Rom. 1:20, 2:4, 11&15, 3:22, 4:23-24, 5:15&19, 10:9-13, 11:32, Gal. 3:8&14, Eph. 2:8-9, Phil. 2:10-11, Col. 1:19-23, 1Tim. 2:3-4, etc.

John 6:39 harmonizes with 1Tim. 2:3-4 when one accepts NT teaching that souls have MFW that can ignore God's Word/will.
The astute will note that in Matt. 13:14-15 Jesus amended the wording of Isa. 6:9-10 (cf. Pro. 21:1, Exo. 7:3) to put the onus for evil on human hearts rather than on God's dictatorship.
Click to expand...
GWH, your theology collapses because it places the sovereign throne of God underneath the footstool of Man’s Free Will (MFW). You claim that your MFW freely loves truth, completely ignoring Romans 8:7, which states the natural mind is total enmity against God. Fallen man does not freely love spiritual truth; he hates it until God changes his heart. By exalting MFW, you make man the ultimate decider of his own salvation, which is a flat-out denial of sovereign grace.

Your concept of omnilove actually degrades God. If God loves every single individual with a saving love, yet fails to save them because their MFW thwarts Him, you worship a disappointed, defeated deity whose purposes are frustrated by worms of the dust. John 3:16 speaks of the world of the elect—both Jew and Gentile—whom God so loved that He actually secures their salvation. 1 Timothy 2:4 speaks of all ranks and orders of men, not every individual without exception; otherwise, God’s will is violated, stripping Him of His omnipotence (Psalm 115:3).

Your argument regarding Greek present tenses completely misses the point. The continuous believing and following of the sheep is the fruit of their eternal security, not the condition to maintain it. Christ settled this in John 10:26: men do not fail to become sheep because they won't believe; they fail to believe because they are not His sheep. The faith of the elect is preserved continuously by the Spirit, not by the shifting sand of human willpower.

Finally, your claim that Jesus amended Isaiah 6 to hide God’s dictatorship is a massive error. John 12:39-40 directly interprets those passages for us, stating bluntly: Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart. God is the absolute Sovereign. He judicially hardens the reprobate in their natural rebellion, and He sovereignly quickens the elect. Salvation is not a synergistic partnership where God proposes and man disposes. Salvation is of the Lord alone.

 
pinebeach said:
LOL! Do you think we can make doctrine out of one verse and ignore the context? The following, says otherwise and you wrote it. :)

I don't have time to deal with them all, but I can make a general observation about your list. I noticed that many of your citations are single verses. The first responsibility in exegesis is to let a verse speak from within its immediate context. When someone cites a single verse, we cannot begin by importing ideas from elsewhere; we begin by asking what the author is actually doing at that moment in the argument. What is the subject he is addressing? What is the emphasis he is pressing? Only after we have located the verse inside its paragraph, its flow of thought, and its rhetorical purpose can we responsibly move outward to larger canonical connections. Good interpretation starts with the author’s own voice before it considers anyone else’s.
(See the Hermeneutics thread post 799)



Now go ahead and do your ususal spin and try to impress your Bible class only oops! this is not your Bible class here and some of us actually seem to have a better grip on scripture then do you oh great teacher to the masses. What you do actually understand, is how to try to gaslight people and I bet you have your family wondering if they have a bad memory.



Well, since you took it out of context and I put it back in, I understand that you are probably quite emotional and do not understand how that is done. So, immediate context is one verse is it? I would be embarrassed if I were you. Peter is addressing the fact that the delay of Christ's return is because God is patient and longsuffering and that's a good thing for most of us.

I hope people notice how you try to belittle me with your personal and subjective comments used to try to gaslight everyone and put me on the defensive. You tried that the last time in a post to me so I guess you may have difficulty with original content. Is it an AI thing?

Sober minded discernment? Honestly I am just having a little raspberry juice. 😋
Click to expand...
Paul makes the same theological move in Romans 11 that Peter makes in his teaching about the apparent “delay” of the Lord’s return. Peter says the Lord is patient, holding back the Day until He has brought all whom He intends to repentance; Paul frames that same logic in terms of Israel’s present condition. In Romans 11 he explains that a partial hardening has come upon Israel—not total, not final—until the full number of Gentiles has come in. In other words, God is orchestrating history toward a redemptive fullness, and the present delay is not evidence of divine slackness but of divine purpose. Just as Peter says God waits so that all may reach repentance, Paul says God waits until His Gentile ingathering is complete, after which He will remove Israel’s hardening and bring about their restoration. Both apostles interpret the “delay” not as an interruption in God’s plan but as the very means by which God completes it.
 
Answering two of GWH massive volume of scripture that he himself never exegeted:

Your reliance on Matthew 23:37 and Acts 2:38 completely falls apart when you actually look at the grammar and the context of the texts.

In Matthew 23:37, you commit a massive reading error by confusing the target. Christ says: How often I wanted to gather your children... but you were not willing! Christ does not say the children were unwilling to be gathered. He states that the civil and religious leaders of Jerusalem—the Scribes and Pharisees whom He spent the entire chapter denouncing—were unwilling to let the common people be gathered to His ministry. This has absolutely nothing to do with human free will frustrating God's sovereign salvation of an individual soul. It is a historical indictment on corrupt religious leaders who actively tried to block the spread of the gospel.

In Acts 2:38, your timeline is entirely backward. You use Peter’s command to 'Repent' to prove that man’s free will must act first before God saves. But you completely ignore verse 37, which says they were already 'pricked in their heart.' They weren't operating out of natural free will; they were already under the sovereign, cutting conviction of the Holy Spirit. Peter's call to repent was a command to a people already being quickened by grace. Furthermore, Scripture explicitly states that repentance is not a product of man's free will, but a sovereign gift from Christ's throne (Acts 5:31). You cannot command a dead corpse to perform a living action; God must give the life and the gift of repentance first, which then inevitably fruits into active faith.

Your understanding of the phrase 'for the remission of sins' in Acts 2:38 completely collapses on a basic Greek level. You assume the preposition eis means 'in order to get' forgiveness, making baptism a meritorious work. But eis is frequently used causally to mean 'because of' or 'in view of' something that has already taken place.

Look at Matthew 12:41, where it says the people of Nineveh 'repented at [eis] the preaching of Jonah.' They didn't repent in order to get Jonah to preach; they repented because of the preaching that had already occurred.

In the exact same way, Peter is telling these heart-pricked believers to be baptized because of the remission of sins already secured for them by Christ. Remission of sins is a finished, blood-bought reality achieved on the cross, not a wage paid out by God in exchange for stepping into a pool of water. Baptism points backward to a past justification; it does not buy a future one.

 
brightfame52 said:


GWH, your theology collapses because it places the sovereign throne of God underneath the footstool of Man’s Free Will (MFW). You claim that your MFW freely loves truth, completely ignoring Romans 8:7, which states the natural mind is total enmity against God. Fallen man does not freely love spiritual truth; he hates it until God changes his heart. By exalting MFW, you make man the ultimate decider of his own salvation, which is a flat-out denial of sovereign grace.

Your concept of omnilove actually degrades God. If God loves every single individual with a saving love, yet fails to save them because their MFW thwarts Him, you worship a disappointed, defeated deity whose purposes are frustrated by worms of the dust. John 3:16 speaks of the world of the elect—both Jew and Gentile—whom God so loved that He actually secures their salvation. 1 Timothy 2:4 speaks of all ranks and orders of men, not every individual without exception; otherwise, God’s will is violated, stripping Him of His omnipotence (Psalm 115:3).

Your argument regarding Greek present tenses completely misses the point. The continuous believing and following of the sheep is the fruit of their eternal security, not the condition to maintain it. Christ settled this in John 10:26: men do not fail to become sheep because they won't believe; they fail to believe because they are not His sheep. The faith of the elect is preserved continuously by the Spirit, not by the shifting sand of human willpower.

Finally, your claim that Jesus amended Isaiah 6 to hide God’s dictatorship is a massive error. John 12:39-40 directly interprets those passages for us, stating bluntly: Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart. God is the absolute Sovereign. He judicially hardens the reprobate in their natural rebellion, and He sovereignly quickens the elect. Salvation is not a synergistic partnership where God proposes and man disposes. Salvation is of the Lord alone.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, it is TULIP that collapses in its attempt to limit the sovereignty of God by decreeing that God is not allowed to create humans with MFW but must limit Himself to robots. Not only that, but its interpretation of John 12:39-40 also makes God responsible for sin/evil by denying that saving faith is God's condition for salvation.

Unbend the tulip pretzel and go straight to heaven.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeIsHere and Charlesiii
GWH said:
Yes, although at some point in his writings Augustine theorized that God knows every option the elect would choose,
so He presents them only with options that lead them to have saving faith.

While that theory technically preserved human volition, it blew the doctrine of divine love and justness hades low--
but Calvin and other tulipists failed to catch that perverse error, perhaps projecting their hateful judgmentalism onto God.
Click to expand...

Yes so true, they project who "they are" onto God.
 
Roger316 said:
You have exposed the contradiction in the doctrine of irresistible grace. And your question is valid. And I agree with it. Everyone knows that grace can be resisted.

Now, do you see that characterizing my position as TULIP is unfair? Not that I am important, but I am not a Calvinist, and I don't affirm TULIP. I distance myself from my Reformed brothers and sisters on their philosophical framework, which didn't come from the Bible.

I choose the Philosophical framework that Paul the Apostle held, His philosophical framework rests on a simple but sweeping conviction: God is not only the creator of people, but the author of the narrative each life reveals. Romans 9 makes this explicit through the potter‑and‑clay analogy, in which God shapes vessels not merely in their being but also in their purpose. For Paul, God’s sovereignty is narrative sovereignty: He forms individuals with particular roles that display His mercy, His justice, and His patience. This means human lives are not random sequences of choices but storylines crafted by a Creator whose designs are morally coherent. When Paul says God “works in you,” he is describing the same reality Romans 9 portrays—God as the One who authors both the person and the arc of their life, so that their story ultimately reveals His character.

When I say we all have “as much free will as we think we have,” I don’t mean our choices are illusions or that God puppets us. I mean that within the story God authors, our decisions are real, meaningful, and genuinely ours. We choose according to what we desire, and those choices matter. Paul’s framework doesn’t erase human agency; it grounds it. God creates the person and the narrative of their life, but within that narrative He allows authentic human willing and acting. So our free will is not absolute or independent, but it is real—rooted in the desires of our own hearts and operating inside the sovereign story God is telling.
Click to expand...

If Grace can be resisted then you have refuted your own position in post #5475

Roger316 said:
Peter’s logic only makes sense if “all” refers to all of the people God is gathering,
Click to expand...


As well Romans 9 is not a thesis by Paul on God's determinism for individual salvation when read in it's entirety, in context.

“Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works” (vss. 30–32).

He gives mercy in response to faith and he hardens in response to unbelief. It’s not the other way around. People don’t have faith as a result of God having mercy on them, and people don’t have unbelief as a result of God hardening them.
TRUTH
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roger316 and WayneNSO
GWH said:
On the contrary, it is TULIP that collapses in its attempt to limit the sovereignty of God by decreeing that God is not allowed to create humans with MFW but must limit Himself to robots. Not only that, but its interpretation of John 12:39-40 also makes God responsible for sin/evil by denying that saving faith is God's condition for salvation.

Unbend the tulip pretzel and go straight to heaven.
Click to expand...
GWH, your response is nothing more than a collection of tired, unscriptural clichés because you cannot handle the raw data of the text. You accuse the biblical doctrine of election of turning humans into robots, and you claim that sovereign grace limits God’s sovereignty. Think about what you are saying. You are arguing that in order for God to be truly sovereign, He must limit His own power and subject His eternal decrees to the shifting whims of human willpower. That is a logical absurdity. A god who is not allowed to unconditionally save whom He pleases is not a sovereign god at all; he is a prisoner to the creature's choice.

Furthermore, your accusation that John 12:39-40 makes God responsible for sin shows that your issue is not with me, but with the Holy Spirit who wrote the text. I didn't write John 12:39-40; the Apostle John did. The text says bluntly: Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart. You completely dodged this scripture because it shatters your theology. God does not infuse evil into human hearts to make them sin; man is already born totally depraved, corrupt, and in active rebellion. God is the holy and righteous Judge who judicially hardens the reprobate in the very sins they already freely love, while sovereignly softening the elect by pure grace.

You claim that saving faith is God's condition for salvation, but you fail to answer the ultimate question: where does that faith come from? If faith is a condition that man must generate out of his own natural willpower, then salvation is a reward for human effort, and man has a reason to boast. But Scripture says faith is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The only one twisting scriptures into a pretzel is you. You completely ignored Christ's clear statement in John 10:26: Ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep. You want the text to say "you are not My sheep because you don't believe," but Christ states the exact opposite. Sovereign election determines who the sheep are, and the sheep inevitably believe because the Spirit quickens them. Drop the emotional arguments about robots, stop running from the text, and answer the words on the page: if man's free will is the ultimate decider, why did Christ say people could not believe because God hardened them?

 
brightfame52 said:
GWH, your response is nothing more than a collection of tired, unscriptural clichés because you cannot handle the raw data of the text. You accuse the biblical doctrine of election of turning humans into robots, and you claim that sovereign grace limits God’s sovereignty. Think about what you are saying. You are arguing that in order for God to be truly sovereign, He must limit His own power and subject His eternal decrees to the shifting whims of human willpower. That is a logical absurdity. A god who is not allowed to unconditionally save whom He pleases is not a sovereign god at all; he is a prisoner to the creature's choice.

Furthermore, your accusation that John 12:39-40 makes God responsible for sin shows that your issue is not with me, but with the Holy Spirit who wrote the text. I didn't write John 12:39-40; the Apostle John did. The text says bluntly: Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart. You completely dodged this scripture because it shatters your theology. God does not infuse evil into human hearts to make them sin; man is already born totally depraved, corrupt, and in active rebellion. God is the holy and righteous Judge who judicially hardens the reprobate in the very sins they already freely love, while sovereignly softening the elect by pure grace.

You claim that saving faith is God's condition for salvation, but you fail to answer the ultimate question: where does that faith come from? If faith is a condition that man must generate out of his own natural willpower, then salvation is a reward for human effort, and man has a reason to boast. But Scripture says faith is a gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The only one twisting scriptures into a pretzel is you. You completely ignored Christ's clear statement in John 10:26: Ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep. You want the text to say "you are not My sheep because you don't believe," but Christ states the exact opposite. Sovereign election determines who the sheep are, and the sheep inevitably believe because the Spirit quickens them. Drop the emotional arguments about robots, stop running from the text, and answer the words on the page: if man's free will is the ultimate decider, why did Christ say people could not believe because God hardened them?

Click to expand...


Salvation is the gift, not a reward, therefore your entire "you can boast" has no merit, every true believer has met the same condition that God requires.
God did not remove the ability to recognize truth, we know this because people can and do suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
See Romans 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GWH
WayneNSO said:
I think irresistible grace lives and works in Amsterdam, but I am very tired at the moment so I might be getting mixed up :sleep:

This Calvinist thread is never ending :)
Click to expand...

If not for the fact I learn from having to rebut their nonsense, it would be a complete waste of time!!

But it is wearing very thin, they say the same things over and over again and not only that they are very disingenuous how they handle scripture, ignoring context, using word meanings that support their "system" when needed and then switching when it does not, along with using eisegesis over and over again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneNSO
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back