• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
B

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟99,049.00
Faith
Christian
Cygnus, I agree that "it all begins with God"; yet we have different understandings of what that means.

The Ezk11 passage was speaking of a specific people; yet, "all begins", means "He gathered them together and assembled them". Do they have new hearts? No.

Verse 18 says "WHEN they come there, they will remove all its detestable things and all its abominations." Do they have new hearts? No.

Verse 19 says "AND I shall give them new hearts..." Do they have new hearts? YES.

Three things:
1. "Gathering", is analogous to the present-day "calling"; and precedes "new-hearts".
2. "Turning-to-God" (away from abominations), precedes "new hearts".
3. Not everyone turned from abominations; no "God-exclusivity" is asserted, it's consistent to understand "turning is a choice".

And towards proving that "consistency", Ezk19:24-32:
Eze 18:24 "But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and does according to all the abominations that a wicked man does, will he live? All his righteous deeds which he has done will not be remembered for his treachery which he has committed and his sin which he has committed; for them he will die.
Eze 18:25 "Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Hear now, O house of Israel! Is My way not right? Is it not your ways that are not right?
Eze 18:26 "When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity and dies because of it, for his iniquity which he has committed he will die.
Eze 18:27 "Again, when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness which he has committed and practices justice and righteousness, he will save his life.
Eze 18:28 "Because he considered and turned away from all his transgressions which he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
Eze 18:29 "But the house of Israel says, 'The way of the Lord is not right.' Are My ways not right, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are not right?
Eze 18:30 "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct," declares the Lord GOD. "Repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not become a stumbling block to you.
Eze 18:31 "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel?
Eze 18:32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."

Cygnus, that is not "poor-attempt-refutation", it is not "incoherent", it is not "one-liners".

It is solid, and Scripturally proven...
 
Upvote 0
O

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian
 
Upvote 0
B

Ben johnson

Legend
Site Supporter
Feb 9, 2002
16,916
404
Oklahoma
Visit site
✟99,049.00
Faith
Christian
Quoted by Ormly:
FWIW: Revivals never work. If they did the first one would have. Besides, God never sends revival. He sends Himself. I believe that is the reason revivals are little more than 'pep rallies'. God doesn't show up.​
"Revival" is a misused word. It's not a "camp meeting", it's not any kind of meeting; the word means when very large amounts of men turn to God. There was one in Europe at the turn of the 20th century, so profound that the horses could not be controlled.

The horses only knew commands with profanity; and when so many hearts turned to God, men stopped cursing.
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution

Did you answer my statement? No, you did not. Do you agree that a Christian, by virtue of Christ's work, has had ALL of their sins forgiven? And do you agree that this includes sins they have not as of yet committed? If that is so, then how can you say that a Christian could fall away and become unsaved if they do not consciously repent of specific sins, as they are committed? Where is Grace in that? If all of our sins are covered, how can they yet be held against us?



Which is the means God has provided us to assist in none of us being in that position. Whether the man is real or not doesn't matter. I believe that it is hypothetical, a teaching example to illustrate Paul's point. You obviously don't. But, you must view this in light of the questions I have asked above, and what the implications are. So far, you have avoided it. Now's the time to address the questions, without spin, without selective misquoting, without glossing things over. Can you do that? Will you?
Posted by NBF:
First, let’s clear up something. What you just said that I said here, is NOT what I said. I did not say anything about God purposing for men to "disbelieve and go to Hell". This is a blatant example of how you twist the words of others, and disrespect them by neither quoting them correctly, or answering directly what they have asked. You spin everything to try and make it work to your advantage,. You have proven that charge very graphically right here.
​
Ben said:
Ah --- I'm pleased that I was wrong. So you do not believe God wants/desires/decrees/decides for anyone to go to Hell.
Click to expand...

Ben, why do you interpret and extrapolate from what I said, to make it appear that I said something i did not say? Do you have the ability to perceive and understand what I said, and only what I said, at face value, without reading into it things I did not say, or even address? Do you realize that this is dishonest, and fosters misunderstanding, strife, and anger?

Why do you disrespect me in this fashion? I pointed out exactly how you had misrepresented what I said before, and in reply, you misrepresent what I said pointing out where you had misrepresented me before. There is a definite cognitive dissonance here, and it is not I who has the problem.

Ben said:
We agree on this point, completely.
Click to expand...

No we don't, because you misrepresented what I said. That is a clear, incontrovertible FACT.
Posted by NBF:
If Jesus wanted all to understand and to see, he would not have spoken in parables. But He clearly states that He does so for a reason, and that reason is to prevent them from hearing and understanding. He is leaving those in their unbelief, and hardness of heart and blindness, for a reason. That reason had to do with opening up the Gospel to the Gentiles, and making the Gentiles able to be heirs of the promise, alongside the Jews. ​

No, I do not have to "take it back". Here we have a clear example of how you twist and distort what others have said, in order to gain advantage for yourself. I explained clearly what I meant, and I posted 3 scriptures to back it up. You didn't deal with the scriptures at all, and misrepresented what I said about them. Jesus clearly stated that He spoke to the people in parables, SO THAT they would not see and not hear, and not turn, repent and be healed of their sins. It was prophesied that this happen, and it was fulfilled by Jesus, one of many prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in His earthly ministry. As I have pointed out before, Jesus rebuked them for the unbelief (which is God's prerogative to do without regard to ability to change) they held, because, of all people, they should have believed, seeing that they claimed to believe Moses, who spoke of Christ. Jesus rightly pointed out that they did not believe Him, because they really did not believe Moses, thereby showing that they were hardened and blind and deaf, and Jesus chose to leave them in that state. This is undeniable.

Ben said:
Besides, per Rom11, He shut them ALL up in disobedience, that He may have mercy on ALL...
Click to expand...

Logical outcome of that verse taken by itself, the way you interpret it, is Universalism. Are you a Universalist, Ben?
Posted by NBF:
Let's see if you can own up to the obvious documented contradictions of your theology and your replies in this thread.​
Ben said:
What contradictions? Cygnus claimed that, and I responded --- patiently showing what I'd said was not a contradiction.
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious, Ben. I have shown a multitude of contradictions, misquotes, made-up quotes, and misrepresentations by you in this thread, just in the last day. As of yet you have not addressed the bulk of them and the one you addressed in this post, you screwed it up even further.
Quote:
You claim to not respond to Fru's posts, then did so right here. So you do respond when it suits you, when you can try and make it appear that you are being persecuted, but you will not reply to the substance and points of his posts, because in reality, you can't.

​
This was edited out of the post you are quoting, because I thought better or it after I posted it. You really should check before you post, to be sure you're quoting accurately. As it is, this only exists in this post, because you quoted from an earlier version of my post, before I edited to make it a little more civil. I would have preferred that this not be quoted, but you have done the damage. I stand by what I said, but apologize for the manner in which I said it.
Posted by NBF (with updates from the original post):

"Fostering kindness and civility" to you seems to mean accepting what you say as the final definitive word on the subject. Given the clear, multiple, and troubling defects we see and have pointed out in your theology, and your seeming refusal to deal with them, makes it difficult. Kindness and civility can and should be fostered here, but it needs to start with you, and your owning up to issues that you clearly have not done.​
Ben said:
Show me where I have been "unkind" or "uncivil", that I may seek forgiveness.
Click to expand...

Unkind as in making false charges against myself and Frumanchu? Still waiting for the resolution of that one.

Unkind as in misquoting me, twisting my words and adding to them things I did not say?

Check, right here in this post.

Unkind, as in misquoting me, and then offering a false admission of being wrong and immediately twisting what I said into something I did not say?

Check!

Disrespecting posters by not accurately quoting them, adding to their words things they did not say, misrepresenting what they do say, IS unkind, Ben.
Ben said:
Meanwhile, the reality is that in especially the last couple of threads, "Sovereign-Predestination" has been shredded.
Click to expand...

That is only your opinion, and the reality is, it is not widely believed. In fact, your support consists of yourself, and one other, who only half-heartedly supports you, so I would call that one half of another supporting you, and then only selectively. In the 1 Cor 2 thread, your poll shows that you were soundly defeated. So for you to make such a claim is willfully blind to what is really going on. With respect, of course.


Your "proof": consists of "yes, it does". Believing Moses has nothing to do with coming to Jesus. And as I have pointed out, Jesus Himself said that "No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me drags him."(John 6:44). Who acts first? The Father, dragging them to Jesus. Whose will is enacted here? The Father's. They do not come to Him of their own will. The Father drags them to Christ, and THEN they come to Jesus, in faith. Read it carefully, Ben.


I corrected myself, but apparently that is not acceptable to Ben, because he believes he can use it as a weapon against me. God has forgiven my sins, but Ben will not forgive and forget something I corrected in my own thinking and subsequent explanations.

Here is what Ben has not, and will not answer: If Belief is simultaneous with repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration, and adoption, as he claims, then faith cannot be "causal" to those things, because the effect cannot be simultaneous with its cause, nor can the cause be its own effect. If faith is equivalent to repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration, and adoption, then it is the effect, along with those other things, and cannot be the cause. The cause can only be something or Someone other than the effect, i.e. God.

If, however, faith is the cause of repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration and adoption, then it logically follows that faith precedes repentance, justification, sanctification, regeneration, and adoption, and there is a period of time where the following are true, no matter how short that time may be:

  • There is a time when men believe but are not justified
  • There is a time when men believe but are still children of the devil
  • There is a time when men believe but are not born again
  • There is a time when men believe but are not adopted sons of God
  • There is a time when men believe but are not in Christ
  • There is a time when men believe but are not elect
  • There is a time when men believe but are not saved

As can clearly be seen, Ben has a problem in his theology. If faith is causal to salvation, then the above list applies, and he must explain how these things can be, because they flow logically from his contention that faith is "causal" to one's salvation. This presents a problem, because he cannot demonstrate how the unregenerate can believe savingly without the prior working of the Holy Spirit to convict them, which implies a regenerated heart.

If, however, faith is simultaneous to the other components of salvation, and equivalent and interchangeable, as Ben has said on occasion, then Monergism is logically upheld, seeing that the cause is not the effect (salvation), and no effect can exist without a cause. Ben's theology stands in contradiction to that fact.
continued..........
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
..............Continuation of previous post

Ben said:
You compared the process to a nuclear reaction;
Click to expand...

No, I did not. You are misrepresenting what I have repeatedly said. I compared the ANALYSIS of salvation to the ANALYSIS of a nuclear reaction. In both cases, the analysis does not require the consideration of time to determine what happens, and the order in which it happens. All that is being considered at that point, is what occurs, and the order in which the events occur, apart from the consideration of time. I'll say it yet again, sequence does not require time.


I am not denying that the reaction occurs in time, Ben. You are deliberately confusing things. Analyzing WHAT happens is not a consideration of time. The mousetrap/ping pong ball illustration can likewise be analyzed apart from the consideration of time.


Ben said:
So even in trying to present an analogy, you did not support what you wanted.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't support what YOU wanted. I completely supported the theological method of analysis, and gave two solid analogies which illustrate the method: the analysis of a nuclear reaction, and the making of a grocery list.

Bottom line, I have illustrated above, a clear problem for your theology, one which you have not addressed or answered.
Posted by NBF (with updates fropm the original post):
The over-riding theme of your posts seems to be that you have never been refuted (when it is clear that you have been), and trying to create the illusion of 100% accuracy in everything you say. If that were really true, there would be no replies pointing out flawed reasoning, misquotes, inaccurate paraphrasing of scriptures, illogical declarations, and avoidance of the errors seen in your theology. These are legitimate concerns, which you don't seen to be interested in addressing.
​
Ben said:
And those replies have been replied, yet it's still treated as if they weren't.
Click to expand...

You mean like the fact that you ignore our replies, and claim they were never made???
Posted by NBF:
Your reply to those things, if you choose to reply at all, is "not really".
​

Spin, spin, spin. That is a far cry from what you asserted in the OP of that thread. You tried to censor theological debate, by trying to eliminate a scripture passage from discussion of Calvinist doctrine vs. RG. You should have known that Calvinists would not, and did not stand for such a blatantly dishonest attempt to gain unfair advantage for yourself by doing so. And we have shown that the larger context of the first three chapters can and do uphold the Calvinist view.
Posted by NBF:
If you want kindness and civility, you must be kind and civil.
​
Ben said:
Again, show me where I have been unkind or uncivil, that I may ask forgiveness and make amends.
Click to expand...

I have done so, and you know what you need to do. The question is, will you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
 
Upvote 0
O

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian

I am seventy years a Pentecostal. I full well know of what you speak. I have lived through many revivals. Few have been genuine successes and even those that were were soon dissipated because of wrong teaching that taught: "Jesus changes things"; "Jesus never fails" inferring nothing was required of those looking for the change/hope. In the end discouragement, despair and rejection of the gospel set in and "the condition is worse than in the beginning".

The gospel message that references back only to the fall, will be a failure. It is the wrong starting point. It must be taken back to the beginning. Paul taught it that way.
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Ormly said:
Once again, Phoo ee

FWIW: Revivals never work. If they did the first one would have. Besides, God never sends revival. He sends Himself. I believe that is the reason revivals are little more than 'pep rallies'. God doesn't show up.
Click to expand...

phoo ee ? read some of the Revivals in New England under Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield , even the Wesley's , then read of the several Revivals in Wales (UK) accompanied by God's miraculous power ... don't compare these to modern day "revivals" such as the kind in Florida , TB etc , , btw , Todd Bentley has now been struck off I hear , something to do with some an unlawful relationship.
 
Upvote 0
O

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian

I know about them. Charles Finney as well. Do you know about his campaigns?
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married

That's right bro , and that is the Fatal FLAW of this thread , ben has created a FALSE dichotomy , he thinks ;

'as an unregenerate person is always drawn towards sin according to those pesky Calvinist's seeing as he has a sin nature , even so a regenerate person must also always act righteously seeing as he has a NEW nature , therefore why do Christians still sin , I have them pesky Calvinist's with dis one '

thus he is simplistically defining the one dimensional thinking of sinners (always downward) as being equal to a supposed one dimensional thinking of those saved (always upwards), he has done this before , but Calvinists don't believe in equal ultimacy ; that God works in the same way with sinners as He does with the Regenerate , because God doesn't work sin in any unbeliever as He does work Righteousness in a believer.

Ben's whole post in the OP is therefore totally flawed.

Christians don't always follow after Christ , seeing as they have still within themselves the same fallen nature that opposes God and loves sin , the question really ought to be what gurantees have the Christian been given that they will in the final analysis be victorious and finally win over sin the flesh and the Devil .

Ben's other mistake is to suggest that Christians are in the same place , no better and no worse than they were before they were born-again , at both stages ben will have it that men can obey God , that men can do whatever God commands , and that it's all down to human will , but even an alcholic or a gambler will reject that one.

What really is lacking from ben's theories is what benefit there is in even being born-again , if he thinks , as I am sure he still does , that we are born-again merely to have eternal life , then that is such a skewed view of things as to be laughable , Jesus has eternal life and he was never born-again.

The truth is those who can obey God , who can submit to God , who have it already within themselves to please God have no real NEED of being born-again and granted God's nature. For that operation would be superfluous.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟28,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Ben johnson said:
Let's see if we can keep this thread open, by fostering kindness and civility.

Click to expand...

I was hoping for a direct response to the Greek argument presented. I may have missed something - but I didn't see anything over the top in regards to rudeness....
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
The apostles were not even aware that they had already been cleansed ....... and cleansing comes via the washing of regeneration ..... see their lack of understanding when Jesus washed their feet ....... Judas was never clean.
ben said:
Right. But the "paliggenesia" is through the POURED Spirit.

And I'm asking, "is there any reason to take the "ekcheo-poured" of Titus3:5 as something different than the "ekcheo-poured" of Acts10:45?

"AFTER believing"? (Acts11:17)
Click to expand...

Acts 11:17

Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? KJV

the gift of the Holy Spirit is not the same as regeneration ben , there is a mystery of regeneration that takes place before humans are aware of it , if you read in Acts that they through faith received the promised Holy Spirit , follow through your claim , did the Apostles only get born -again at Pentecost ?
 No , and niether did the crowds who through faith received the Holy Spirit's outpouring .....

 Consider the reason why The Holy Spirit was given after Christ was resurrected and timed to coincide with His ascension....... it has nothing to do with Regeneration , but empowerment and future guidence .

 You are stuck with a formula that insists faith is a prerequisite to regeneration , but although regeneration is necessary for salvation , faith is not required to be regenerate in fact many babies and idiots cannot have faith , because they lack understanding .
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Ormly said:
". . . . let no man lead you astray: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous" 1 John 3:7 (ASV)

Jesus only came to redeem the righteous.
Click to expand...

WOW !!!!!!!!!

that is surely the one to take First Prize at the Hyper Calvinist ball this coming summer !
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ben johnson said:
"Regeneration", means what 2Cor5:17 says --- we are new creations, the old is passed away and all is new. Yet, the Greek tense supports "the old is pass-ING away, new things have come".
Click to expand...
The Greek tense actually says nothing about this, and purely indicates the old has passed away. Whatever "old" Paul is referring to has passed away.

Unless you can come up with something old that "has passed away" and also "is passing away", then you're not going to get Greek to even accept your view.

But in any event the Greek "passed away" certainly doesn't support "pass-ING away".
Ben johnson said:
Hi, Dean. I believe if you'll go back and read the 1Cor2:14 thread, every point was fully established, and Calvinism was faring very badly.
Click to expand...
As we kept pointing out and you kept ignoring, you missed quite a few excluded middles.

The logical equivalent of your argument was like this:
Paul says something greater than 3 is required.
Clearly here he's talking about 4. It's greater than 3.
But you're wrong because you think it's also true of 5. Obviously it could only be 4, because that's the only case Paul talked about.
​
We demonstrated more than one instance within the context in which Paul was talking about other "things", and was clearly relating them. They're the thrust of his point, of course they're related else he's talking gibberish.

But no. It's 5, not 4. So you won't agree.

No wonder the thread was locked. There was no way of getting around the errant declaration of victory. Now you're reproducing this error, dragging it into another thread. Why does anyone expect this thread to remain unlocked with so much hubris on it, right from the OP?
 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married

Hi Mikey ,

I am still having difficulty with this quote from ben ;



at other times ben seems to agree with Calvinists that the old nature is still present within Christians causing conflict , but at other times ben seems to be fudging this position or out and out contradicting it , as in the above quote.

perhaps he hasn't made up his mind so is backing two different horses ?
 
Upvote 0
O

Ormly

Senior Veteran
Dec 11, 2004
6,230
94
✟7,151.00
Faith
Christian
If I may: Regeneration means the taking into us the very Nature of the Father as Jesus possessed by His birth. It is that Nature alone the Father [HS] can only communicate with. It is that Nature alone, the evidence of which by default, seeks union with God. You might say it is "deep calling to deep". This newly created deposition is purposed to be increased by the impartation of the Character of God as it is learned. There can be no compromise in this in any way with our human nature that clamors for attention and screams for it rights to be observed. Crucifying it is therefore by degrees as it reveals itself in the various ways it will. This is what could be called the grooming for son-ship that must happen if we are to say we are growing in Christ. There is no automatic immediate death to self that regeneration provides for. Only loving the Father with all your heart, soul, mind and strength will accomplish that. In fact unless you are regenerated you will never realize you have a self that controls you and will only go kicking and screaming by discipline from us that declares I love my heavenly Father and will do only as I see Him do.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yeah, I really don't know what Ben's thinking, CygnusX1.

All I know is the deviation from what Scripture said. I've no agenda here. I agree with you, this could be misunderstood to say our sinful natures have passed away, when they haven't.

For what it's worth, I think it's the consideration that Paul is emphasizing. "from now on we consider no one according to the flesh", but instead take the longer view that this creation is headed for destruction, and consider people with this already calculated into how we respond.

The grammar doesn't lead me to that. The semantics does.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution

Or, it could be that he's just making it up as he goes along...whatever is needed to oppose Calvinism at that moment and point....
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
HM80 said:
But no. It's 5, not 4. So you won't agree.
Click to expand...

Well, I recall someone saying somewhere else that "four is right out!"

Something to do with a "holy hand grenade of Antioch"......
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Who then can be saved?
Replies
128
Views
4K
Salvation (Soteriology)
Dan1988
What is your theory, belief around Foreknowledge?
Replies
58
Views
2K
Controversial Christian Theology
Indentured Servant
No Peace for The Wicked
Replies
0
Views
389
Deeper Fellowship
Christsfreeservant
Formerly Engaged in Evil Deeds
Replies
0
Views
394
Daily Devotionals
Christsfreeservant
What do they believe: The Early CHurch Farthers
Replies
4
Views
474
Salvation (Soteriology)
FutureAndAHope
Menu
Log in
Register