Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyyou are either a Calvinist (which I find laughable), or you are supremely ignorant of the social sciences
Tim, environment has always been and still is a non-issue. Positive volition at the point of god consciousness obligates the omniscience and omnipotence of God to provide salvation information. Christian upbringing is no guarantee of heaven. It's individual. You're still hung up with a limited horizontal human viewpoint. Country of birth is also a red h ...[text shortened]... alone. Some say 'yes' and get it right. Others for their own good reasons choose 'no'.
Originally posted by duecerNever hid behind simplistic labels. As for TULIP, I'll buy letters 1, 2 and 5. Limited contradicts provision
you are either a Calvinist (which I find laughable), or you are supremely ignorant of the social sciences
of atonement for all. Irresistible denies the reality of volition to say no. Place of birth is inconsequential.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbyeverything you said after "labels" is jibberish, not just to my mediocre reading ability, but utter and true jibber jabber, you may have thought you said something interesting and profound, but they were all incomplete sentances with words completely unrelated to one another. Its posts like these that make people attack you as a psuedo-intellectual.
Never hid behind simplistic labels. As for TULIP, I'll buy letters 1, 2 and 5. Limited contradicts provision
of atonement for all. Irresistible denies the reality of volition to say no. Place of birth is inconsequential.
If you have something to say, say it. No one is impressed with a 69cent vocabulary, they will however appreciate an intelligable response.
This is not meant as an attack, but as a reasonable request
Originally posted by duecerLet's roll the tape back, Pastor Duecer. Since you introduced "Calvinism" I readily assumed you were familiar with the T.U.L.I.P. acronym and that there was no practical need for an overly comprehensive review of its tenets (which would serve only to insult your intelligence). So simply offered a few brief comments on which of the five I buy using common theological words in context, expecting an objective reply.
everything you said after "labels" is jibberish, not just to my mediocre reading ability, but utter and true jibber jabber, you may have thought you said something interesting and profound, but they were all incomplete sentances with words completely unrelated to one another. Its posts like these that make people attack you as a psuedo-intellectual.
If yo ...[text shortened]... ate an intelligable response.
This is not meant as an attack, but as a reasonable request
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyEven if Dooker should have been aware of the acronym, is it reasonable to expect that everyone else is aware of it?
Let's roll the tape back, Pastor Duecer. Since you introduced "Calvinism" I readily assumed you were familiar with the T.U.L.I.P. acronym and that there was no practical need for an overly comprehensive review of its tenets (which would serve only to insult your intelligence). So simply offered a few brief comments on which of the five I buy using common theological words in context, expecting an objective reply.
Even after reading up on Calvanism, it was not immediately obvious that the TULIP acronym came from the 5 tenents of Calvanism. I was left confused as well.
You spend a good bit of time breathing every day, would it be reasonable for me to assume that you know the physical composition and propeties of air? If the composition of air suddenly became integral to our discussion, I would not make the assumption even though, to me, it would seem reasonable that everyone knows the composition of air.
Dooker, the shame, the shame.