Biblical Salvation

[cygnusx1]

Barnabas. A.D. 70.

Barnabas, an apostolic man, bears testimony to the doctrine of the saints’ final perseverance: when he says,[1] that “he that hopes in Christ, sterean petran, ‘the firm and solid rock,’ shall live for ever;” which he afterwards repeats in answer to a question, why the wool and the wood were used in the legal ceremonies: “Because,” says he,[2] the kingdom of Jesus depends upon the tree (he means the cross,) wherefore they that hope in him shall live for ever.” And in another place, he cites[3] the following words as a passage of Scripture, And there was a river drawing, or running, on the right hand, and out of it sprung up beautiful trees, and whosoever eats of them shall live for ever; upon which he observes, that “this he says because we go down into the water (meaning in baptism) full of sins and filth, and we come up out of it bringing forth fruit; having in the heart fear and hope in Jesus through the Spirit, ‘and whosoever eats of these shall live for ever;’ this he says, that whosoever hears the things that are said, kai pisteuse, and believes, shall live for ever.”

 

[cygnusx1]

Ignatius. A.D. 110.

Ignatius also is a witness to this most comfortable truth of the gospel, when he exhorts[1] the saints to “avoid those evil excrescences which bring forth deadly fruit, of which whoever tastes dies; for they are not the Father’s planting;” for if they “were, the branches of the cross would appear, kai en auto karpos autos aphthartos, ‘and their fruit would be incorruptible;’ whereby through his sufferings he hath called you, being his members, ou dunatai ouk kophale choris gennethenai aneu melon, for the head cannot be born, or be, without the members.” And in another place he says,[2] “No man professing faith, sins; nor having obtained love, hates. The tree is known by its fruit. So they that profess to be Christians shall be seen by what they do; for now it is not the business of a profession, all’ en dunamei pisteos ean tis eurethe eis telos, but it is through the power of faith, if any one is found to the end.” By which he intimates, that such is the strength and virtue of true faith, that such who have it are preserved and continued Christians to the end, and are then found to be so. His epistle to the Philadelphians[3] is directed to them as a church firmly settled in the harmony of God, as being an everlasting and permanent joy; and their bishops, elders, and deacons, such whom Christ, according to his own will, esterixen en bebaiosune, “had firmly established, through his Holy Spirit.”

 

[heymikey80]

The Church never taught this notion of OSAS, or once regenerate always regenerate, whatever you want to call it, until John Calvin. Believers believed otherwise for 1500 + years before Arminius was born.

(It's clear John Calvin taught perseverance. Not OSAS. And regeneration was not clearly defined at that point.)

It's interesting how this keeps jumping from one assertion to the next, as each is found to be in error. First that perseverance was never taught until Calvin (which CygnusX1 refuted). Now a new assertion that salvation and perseverance are separate (which Augustine spends a few paragraphs showing they're one message).

I think we should collect this path together, what do you say?

Who said anything about "perseverence" not being taught?

I think that'd be you.

 

[cygnusx1]

(It's clear John Calvin taught perseverance. Not OSAS. And regeneration was not clearly defined at that point.)


I think that'd be you.

I think Oye probably means something else when he says Perseverance , it's OK for him to dispute over the word "perseverance " and it's meaning but it's not ok for the Calvinist's who disclaims OSAS

 

[cygnusx1]

Irenaeus. A.D. 180.

Irenaeus has several passages in his writings which favor this doctrine. Allegorizing the history of Lot’s wife, he thus expresses himself:[1] “The church which is the salt of the earth, is left in the confines of the of the earth, suffering the things which are human; and whilst whole members are often taken away from it, perseverat statua salis qued est firmamentum fidei, firmans et praemittens filios ad Patrem ipsorum, ‘ the pillar of salt continues, which is the firmament of faith, confirming and sending before the children to their Father.” He speaks of the grace of love as an abiding one: “Love,” says he,[2] “perfects the perfect man; and he that loves God is perfect both in this world, and in that which is to come; nunquam enim desivimus diligentus Deum, for we never cease loving God, but the more we look upon him, the more we love him.” He also represents the Spirit of God as never leaving the man he has taken up his residence in; for, he says,[3] “The breath of life is one thing, which makes the man animal, and another the quickening Spirit, which makes him spiritual. That which is made is different from him that makes it, wherefore the breath is temporal, to de Pneuma aennaon, the Spirit eternal.” The breath indeed is vigorous for a little while, and remains some time, after which it goes away, leaving it breathless where it was before; but the Spirit encompasses man within and without, ate aei paramonimon oudepote kataleipei auton, as always abiding, and never leaves him.” Yea, he represents it as blasphemy to say, that the members of Christ shall not be saved, but destroyed; for he makes this observation on 1 Corinthians 3:17, If any one defile the temple of God, etc.: Templum igitur Dei in quo Spiritus inhabitat Patris, et membra Christi non participare salutem, sed in perditionem redigi dicere, quomodo non maximae est blasphemiae? Therefore to say, that the temple of God, in which the Spirit of the Father dwells, and the members of Christ, shall not partake of salvation, but be brought down to destruction, is it not the highest blasphemy? Vossius[4] refers to a chapter in Irenaeus,[5] as militating against the doctrine of the saints’ final perseverance, in which are these expressions: “All are of the same nature, and able to retain and do good, and able to lose it again, and not do it.” And a little after,[6] “Disobedience to God, and loss of good, are indeed in the power of man.” But it should be known and observed, that Irenaeus is disputing against those heretics who held, that some men were by nature good, and others evil; whereas, he says, they are all of the same nature, as at first created by God, capable of doing good and evil. Besides, he speaks only of the loss of natural and moral good in the natural man, and not of the loss of spiritual good, or of supernatural grace in the regenerate man. Moreover, Irenaeus has a passage in the very same chapter[7] which seems to favor the saints’ perseverance; for he says, that “the Lord bore all these things for us, that by all things being learned in all, we might be cautious for the future, et perseveremus in omni ejus dilectione, and persevere in all love to him.”

 

[Oye11]

Hey, I didn`t realize you replied so regret the delay. Cyngus had us so covered up in cut and pastes from KJV only sites I missed this...

Hopefuly not on the basis of what follows in this posting.

And so did I. Didja pick up on that? No?

Well, check your dates. Systematic theology didn't become all the rage 'til a couple hundred years later.

"Systematic theology"? Many find an example in a book you may occasionally read, written in the first century, but I`m not sure what you mean by "rage." There have long been many saints interested in interpreting the scriptures correctly.

In the meantime you can also explain why anyone was ever accepted back into the church after repenting (e.g., under Victor). The verse doesn't permit subsequent repentance on this interpretation. You're not appealing to lapsed Christians, then. Which is fine, bring 'em to us.

Whether Hebrews 10-25-29 allows for a a return is another debate. It clearly teaches the potential lose of salvation by believers "sanctified" and "bought" by the blood.

Systematic? How about realistic, will that do?

What the verses teach is my concern. They teach the potential lose of salvation for blood bought saints.

As I mentioned long ago to Ben, "imperishable" doesn't make something "salvation". It simply makes it "imperishable".

Satan is imperishable. Does that mean he's salvation? No. It doesn't.

It makes no difference to me what you told Ben and that analogy about Satan might be cute but it gets us nowhere. The "imperishable crown" is clearly speaking of that attained by those who endure to the end and are finally saved, whether you like using parallels or not...

Not everything is about salvation. Not everything is soteriology.

Okay, keep going...

Among the foremost exegete of Greek Scripture today, NT Wright, points out this has to be something additional to salvation. 1 Corinthians 9:1 says as much. Your injection of soteriology in this verse is entirely out of context. Paul doesn't just "dump" little prooftexts into Scripture.

What do you expect a Calvinist theologian to say??? 1 Corinthians 9-23-27 among others presents a world of trouble for your philiosophy.

He writes well. He writes consistently. And he writes with a reasoned focus. And he certainly doesn't allude to other books of a Bible that hasn't been compiled yet.

Paul does write well, couldn`t agree more, and the claim that Paul in verse 27 is talking about getting disqualified from his preaching ministry is ludicrous. Pick up the flow in Chapter 10, the very next verse, and it`s about apostasy, the selfsame thing Paul said he was determined to avoid so he would not become "adokimos." Books not compiled yet? LOL Well be careful prooftexting parallel verses from John, a rather late book indeed....

Like Hebrews. You'd need some reason to require the allusion. Otherwise you're just giving more examples how the words are used. You're not limiting anything.

Pointedly, are you saying this race is salvation? I would say it's life on this earth.

They're both illustrated as races. There's no other connection you can make here. Move along.

Huh? And what is the "imperishible crown for"? What is "adokimos" all about? Used in every case in the N.T. to refer to the hellbound. Paul is clearly speaking of perseverence and the conseqences of giving in to the flesh. But since no one is ready to claim he "never was saved" we get song and dance of the variety you bring in this reply...

Now we're pulling in quotations from people Paul himself didn't even get a chance to read. And we're expecting Paul to allude to them?

Oh we have a Calvinist here objecting to using parallels verses? Yours is a scattered prootexting orgy and now cry foul when parallel verses related to crowns, marathons, and "adokimos" work against you.

I can only guess where this theology is gonna go.

Take it up with Paul. This is a very rough spot in the bible for you so I can understand the sigh ....

Of course you'll find the word meaning "unfit" in use this way.

Show me in the N.T. where there word "adokimos" is tranlated anything like "unfit'? Okay let me get this straight. So Paul is writing on about the race and winning and "imperishible crown" and the race is just about being a great preacher and the crown is a reward for that. But darn, he doesn`t get the imperishible preaching crown, "adokimos" is he, a "reprobate" as the word was used in correspondence to the same people, 2 Corinthians 13-5. Then he goes on in his next breath talking about the perils of apostasy, Chapter 10. Sure thing Bro. You have been fed a line of bull necessitated to cover up a verse that flatly contradicts your theology, and shows the great Apostle Paul just didn`t think like you.

That doesn't mean it's always in use. "Pharisee" is often a pejorative term. But then what does Mt 5:19 mean by "unless your righteousness exceeds the Pharisee ..."? Clearly there's more behind the meaning of the word -- be it "Pharisee" or "unfit".

Or take "circumcision". Generally used negatively, Paul switches in Philippians, "we are the true circumcision". Does that mean we're the people who are causing such problems in Galatians, in Jerusalem and elsewhere for Paul?

No.

Now you are just rambling. I actually feel for you and hope this discussion at some point makes you reconsider teaching the false and potentially very dangerous OSAS doctrine.

I'll read Scripture as if someone actually wrote it, thank you. I don't need to imply hidden meanings onto words.

Nothing hidden at all. Paul`s meaning is plenty clear. Would be no discssion here if there weren`t invented such a thing as Calvinism. And his sentiments are right with a consistent theme in the N.T., forward focus, remaining in the faith and avoiding the perils of the flesh, something many of your adherents downplay while accusing believers who seek to obey of pride. Nonsense.

 

[Oye11]

I think Oye probably means something else when he says Perseverance , it's OK for him to dispute over the word "perseverance " and it's meaning but it's not ok for the Calvinist's who disclaims OSAS

Well unless you believe that one can be a born again, "abba father" crying saint and still not saved, then OSAS is exactly what you believe, song and dance not withstanding...

 

[Oye11]

sure if I had more time , you do realise that most of these issues have been dealt with in these boards over the years ?

You argue Calvin was the first to argue for POS , I quoted Augustine , but hey if I only write my own stuff then you could say (and you will) anything you like about the past without any examination and correction , sorry no free passage here


when men make it theri aim to argue not simply over a doctrine but over a whole scholastic historic sytematic Christian theology , you bet I am going to find quotes !

Yea, I take it you read the one I sent you on your "Ben" thread showing Augustine didn`t believe in any security, perseverence to death is the only way one can know. He also saw the gift of perseverence as separate from initial conversion so he isn`t so much a friend for you. Though I hate disassociating you in any way from your only ECF.... Oh and

 

[nobdysfool]

Well unless you believe that one can be a born again, "abba father" crying saint and still not saved, then OSAS is exactly what you believe, song and dance not withstanding...

How about dropping the "I'll tell you what you believe" attitude? It's insulting, condescending, and downright rude. if you want to have a discussion, you don't insult those you wish to converse with. If, on the other hand, your only purpose is to insult Calvinists, or play games with them, then we're not interested, and you will find us unwilling to waste much bandwidth with know-it-alls.

We certainly aren't going to give you a free education in Calvinism, if you think you already know it. Those who do that, in short order usually show the depth of their ignorance.

If you want to know, act like you want to know, rather than trying to "correct" us before we've even started.

 

[Oye11]

How about dropping the "I'll tell you what you believe" attitude? It's insulting, condescending, and downright rude. if you want to have a discussion, you don't insult those you wish to converse with. If, on the other hand, your only purpose is to insult Calvinists, or play games with them, then we're not interested, and you will find us unwilling to waste much bandwidth with know-it-alls.

We certainly aren't going to give you a free education in Calvinism, if you think you already know it. Those who do that, in short order usually show the depth of their ignorance.

If you want to know, act like you want to know, rather than trying to "correct" us before we've even started.

That post was completely within the rules, and there is a great old saying, "if you dish it out, best be ready to take it." By the way if you think I`m going to blow my cool in response to this sort of speech, forget it hombre, I`m not cut of that kind of cloth...

 

[heymikey80]

"Systematic theology"? Many find an example in a book you may occasionally read, written in the first century, but I`m not sure what you mean by "rage." There have long been many saints interested in interpreting the scriptures correctly.

So either you're in error in your prior post, or you're in error in your current post. If it were systematics that were at fault, then systematics are widely prevalent, or they're 16th century.

Whether Hebrews 10-25-29 allows for a a return is another debate. It clearly teaches the potential lose of salvation by believers "sanctified" and "bought" by the blood.

No it doesn't. Nothing about belief here. Move on to your next argument.

Being set apart doesn't make you a believer. Being bought by the blood doesn't make you a believer.

Everyone's bought. Christ rules all. How God will dispose of someone is the concern.

What the verses teach is my concern. They teach the potential lose of salvation for blood bought saints.

Well good luck with that. But that's not what it's saying.

It makes no difference to me what you told Ben and that analogy about Satan might be cute but it gets us nowhere. The "imperishable crown" is clearly speaking of that attained by those who endure to the end and are finally saved, whether you like using parallels or not...

Nope.

What do you expect a Calvinist theologian to say??? 1 Corinthians 9-23-27 among others presents a world of trouble for your philiosophy.

Clearly not. It's not about salvation. You haven't addressed the obvious exegesis.

Paul does write well, couldn`t agree more, and the claim that Paul in verse 27 is talking about getting disqualified from his preaching ministry is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous. Rather it's ludicrous to think Paul isn't talking about his own ministry. "I become all things to all people that by any means I may save some." 9:22 It's ludicrous to assume that is the way Paul himself is saved. Paul is saved by relying on Christ -- not by saving other people.

Pick up the flow in Chapter 10, the very next verse, and it`s about apostasy, the selfsame thing Paul said he was determined to avoid so he would not become "adokimos." Books not compiled yet? LOL Well be careful prooftexting parallel verses from John, a rather late book indeed....

You're saying he said it was what Paul said ... when he said adokimos before? You haven't demonstrated that, so . Begging the question.

Huh? And what is the "imperishible crown for"? What is "adokimos" all about? Used in every case in the N.T. to refer to the hellbound. Paul is clearly speaking of perseverence and the conseqences of giving in to the flesh. But since no one is ready to claim he "never was saved" we get song and dance of the variety you bring in this reply...

Unproved in this particular case. And in fact in another case Paul doesn't use it to refer to the hellbound, it refers to God.

Oh we have a Calvinist here objecting to using parallels verses? Yours is a scattered prootexting orgy and now cry foul when parallel verses related to crowns, marathons, and "adokimos" work against you.

I believe that's flaming, Oye11. Have you really nothing to say about my complaint?

"adokimos" is working great for me.

Take it up with Paul. This is a very rough spot in the bible for you so I can understand the sigh ....

Paul just took up my argument for me.

Show me in the N.T. where there word "adokimos" is tranlated anything like "unfit'?

Why should I? You're the one slinging the verses around. Find it. It's what it means.

This is just inane scrambling to cover for the absence of an argument. I don't care that you don't know the language. Do something at least halfway sane with all this available data.

Or don't. I don't care.

Okay let me get this straight. So Paul is writing on about the race and winning and "imperishible crown" and the race is just about being a great preacher and the crown is a reward for that. But darn, he doesn`t get the imperishible preaching crown, "adokimos" is he, a "reprobate" as the word was used in correspondence to the same people, 2 Corinthians 13-5. Then he goes on in his next breath talking about the perils of apostasy, Chapter 10. Sure thing Bro. You have been fed a line of bull necessitated to cover up a verse that flatly contradicts your theology, and shows the great Apostle Paul just didn`t think like you.

Nah. You've been fed the line to think that winning people saves you. "I become all things to all people that by any means I may save some." 9:22 is not the Gospel of Paul's salvation.

[Is there any coffee around here for when he wakes up?]

 

[cygnusx1]

Well unless you believe that one can be a born again, "abba father" crying saint and still not saved, then OSAS is exactly what you believe, song and dance not withstanding...

OTSAS ; Once TRULY saved is more accurate of what Calvinist's believe


Perseverance Of The Saints may be summed up as OSAS to the man who wishes to ignore content and use OSAS as a cosh , most Calvinists dislike it and reject it because it implies antinomian tendancies .... sticking a label on someone when they denounce the label on good grounds is unkind.

Yea, I take it you read the one I sent you on your "Ben" thread showing Augustine didn`t believe in any security, perseverence to death is the only way one can know. He also saw the gift of perseverence as separate from initial conversion so he isn`t so much a friend for you. Though I hate disassociating you in any way from your only ECF.... Oh and

1st , this is a proven error , which most likely occurs because of Augustine's realisation of his formative errors , he certainly believed in The Final Perseverance Of The Saints as did the other CF I quoted , there are many more btw.

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39473893&postcount=112


2nd are you now quoting Augustine after you denounced me quoting others ?

That post was completely within the rules, and there is a great old saying, "if you dish it out, best be ready to take it." By the way if you think I`m going to blow my cool in response to this sort of speech, forget it hombre, I`m not cut of that kind of cloth...

what did you say about spending time over debating doctrine and ignoring spiritual maturing ....... angels and pinheads indeed !

 

[Oye11]

OTSAS ; Once TRULY saved is more accurate of what Calvinist's believe


Perseverance Of The Saints may be summed up as OSAS to the man who wishes to ignore content and use OSAS as a cosh , most Calvinists dislike it and reject it because it implies antinomian tendancies .... sticking a label on someone when they denounce the label on good grounds is unkind. !

Okay, thanks for owning up to the OSAS... Ya know I never said once not truly saved always saved. I also realize the difference between "cheap gracers" and traditional Calvinists and noted the distinction several times. So no one was a misunderstood victim. I understood it fine from the start.

1st , this is a proven error , which most likely occurs because of Augustine's realisation of his formative errors , he certainly believed in The Final Perseverance Of The Saints as did the other CF I quoted , there are many more btw.

http://foru.ms/showpost.php? p=39473893&postcount=112 !

Okay, I`ll check that later, the Indians just tied the game... The quotes I find show Augustine advocating seeking the gift of perseverence and says nothing about all those who fall before death having never been truly converted. Furthermore, you are flooding the board with cut and pastes of snippets with heavy editorializing inserted inbetween, all from this fundy free grace Baptist site out of Granbury,Texas, as well as cuts from a bubba KJV "only real bible" site. No one here with some knowledge of source evaluation will consider this activity remotely the final word on anything. I`d get a lot more interested if you post a chunk of actual text, name the source and interpret it yourself.

what did you say about spending time over debating doctrine and ignoring spiritual maturing ....... angels and pinheads indeed !

Touche! I indulge in debate once in a while, kinda fills in the gap as I`m not teaching nights at the college any longer. But hey, my post count is still below 1000, huh? Thanks for your concern....

 

[nobdysfool]

That post was completely within the rules, and there is a great old saying, "if you dish it out, best be ready to take it." By the way if you think I`m going to blow my cool in response to this sort of speech, forget it hombre, I`m not cut of that kind of cloth...

Do you think that my reason for posting was to get you to blow your cool? That tells me a lot about the attitude in which you approach this whole forum.

Did I or did I not make a valid point? Quit trying to read into what I say things that you "think" are there. Take the words at face value. I speak plainly, and I have no "agenda".

I'm not trying to anger you, I'm trying to get you to look at the abrasive way you post to Calvinists. I understand that you are very confident in your beliefs, and that's fine. But your mission is not to try to shake the confidence of those you disagree with. And you certainly have not done so with me. Your attitude toward me is the reason I have chosen not to interact much with you, because you disrespect and insult. I don't waste my time with smugness and superiority complexes. They bore me.

 

[Oye11]

Do you think that my reason for posting was to get you to blow your cool? That tells me a lot about the attitude in which you approach this whole forum.

Did I or did I not make a valid point? Quit trying to read into what I say things that you "think" are there. Take the words at face value. I speak plainly, and I have no "agenda".

I'm not trying to anger you, I'm trying to get you to look at the abrasive way you post to Calvinists. I understand that you are very confident in your beliefs, and that's fine. But your mission is not to try to shake the confidence of those you disagree with. And you certainly have not done so with me. Your attitude toward me is the reason I have chosen not to interact much with you, because you disrespect and insult. I don't waste my time with smugness and superiority complexes. They bore me.

Your bias is preventing you from seeing both sides. Where were you when Cygnus was posting his ludicrous flame thread implying that theology at odds with his OSAS was behind a headcase murdering his family? Where are you when Calvinists, in the spirit of John MacArthur, judge hearts accusing men and women of "pride" because they believe the scriptures are at odds with beliefs like irreistible grace and irresistible perseverence? Such pompous accusations from professed "humble" people you are silent on. Step up with some of that and I`ll take you seriously. But until then, the rules of the game seem about the same as the rest of the internet, hard hitting debate, just this side of the forum rules...

 

[Oye11]

Nope.

Clearly not. It's not about salvation. You haven't addressed the obvious exegesis.

I read through your reply and it`s like a game of patty cake, repeating verse 22 while ignoring the obvious exegesis presented in the last five and context of Chapter 10 that immediately follows, still expecting me to believe that Paul is racing for and concerned about not getting an incorruptible preaching crown. Makes me wonder what kind of crown his audience would get as he applied the race and crown to them by saying "we." Maybe they were all preachers... That standard method to try and dismiss these verses was handled in all my posts from the start and your last reply does little more then just tell me I`m wrong, and to say that the many parallel verses backing up the obvious interpretation don`t count because they were written in books dated after 1 Corinthians, whatever that means. If you want to go back and give it another shot I`d be glad to take another look. At this point there is little to reply to.

P.S. As to Hebrews, I really do not know what to say to someone who thinks someone can be bought by the blood, sanctifed, but still be unsaved.

 

[nobdysfool]

Your bias is preventing you from seeing both sides. Where were you when Cygnus was posting his ludicrous flame thread implying that theology at odds with his OSAS was behind a headcase murdering his family? Where are you when Calvinists, in the spirit of John MacArthur, judge hearts accusing men and women of "pride" because they believe the scriptures are at odds with beliefs like irreistible grace and irresistible perseverence? Such pompous accusations from professed "humble" people you are silent on. Step up with some of that and I`ll take you seriously. But until then, the rules of the game seem about the same as the rest of the internet, hard hitting debate, just this side of the forum rules...

I believe we're done here. You obviously have no interest in doing anything but inciting people. Have a nice day.

 

[Oye11]

I believe we're done here. You obviously have no interest in doing anything but inciting people. Have a nice day.

It`s really the pot calling the kettle black. You throw darts yourself and complain but won`t chastise posters of your own theology. In fact when they incite I`ve seen you cheering along. So you really have nothing to sell me here. Have a nice day...

 

[cygnusx1]

Okay, thanks for owning up to the OSAS... Ya know I never said once not truly saved always saved. I also realize the difference between "cheap gracers" and traditional Calvinists and noted the distinction several times. So no one was a misunderstood victim. I understood it fine from the start.

it may have escaped you but i didn't own up to OSAS but OTSAS , a big difference .... but i guess you want to read into things , yes it can be brought down to semantics in which case you also accept OSAS as Mikey proved !

Okay, I`ll check that later, the Indians just tied the game... The quotes I find show Augustine advocating seeking the gift of perseverence and says nothing about all those who fall before death having never been truly converted. Furthermore, you are flooding the board with cut and pastes of snippets with heavy editorializing inserted inbetween, all from this fundy free grace Baptist site out of Granbury,Texas, as well as cuts from a bubba KJV "only real bible" site. No one here with some knowledge of source evaluation will consider this activity remotely the final word on anything. I`d get a lot more interested if you post a chunk of actual text, name the source and interpret it yourself.

wrong on several points , 4 very short quotes from ECF'S is hardly flooding the boards , and one cut from a kjv only site which is excellent ...all showing you made statements that are false POS didn't begin with Calvin , not to waste too much time with this other things to do

Touche! I indulge in debate once in a while, kinda fills in the gap as I`m not teaching nights at the college any longer. But hey, my post count is still below 1000, huh? Thanks for your concern....

yes for a guy who is concerned about the dangers of doctrinal debate ya sure spend a lot of time in here ....

 

[cygnusx1]

It`s really the pot calling the kettle black. You throw darts yourself and complain but won`t chastise posters of your own theology. In fact when they incite I`ve seen you cheering along. So you really have nothing to sell me here. Have a nice day...

it's a pity we cannot all get along but sooner or later men will divide and take sides , truth does that