|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 28, 2013 2:34:43 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 28, 2013 2:03:04 GMT 3
Pure hypocrites! What is the purpose of preaching their doctrines of hate in the world if God already determined all all things? What do they gain? Will they be crowned for preaching the hate of God? Actually, that last one was a rhetorical question - talk about "Hell Bound!"
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 10, 2013 5:00:03 GMT 3
Then this "debate" is over. If you refuse to be respectful and fully read the responses to understand what a person is saying we are finished. Your 3 points you keep coming back to have been thoroughly refuted and explained, unless you have something new to say and are willing to actually read responses I will finally say Thanks for your responses thus far. PS as stated before the BaptistSymposium website may be better if you wish to go in a circle on a verse as as Genuinefaith said, lots of people there are more than happy to do it. And then a few of us there also might tie him down to get him to stick and address the arguments being made rather than chasing all his rabbits.
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 9, 2013 1:39:51 GMT 3
Dr James steppin in and droppin knowledge bombs! BOOM! Hey DrJ you on Baptistsymposium? We don't currently have any debates going on there for him to drop any booms, just kind of hanging out, fellowship and posting about our non-C positions in productive and non-offensive ways. The C's haven't shown up yet - I think maybe the Calvinist who know about it like having their biased advantages and ways over on the BB. LOL Chickens! LOL Just kidding...sorta. Nah, I enjoy posting there though and the atmosphere is a nice change. I think it is structured to bring about some good discussions and debates. I hope more old friends like Dr James show up at some point.
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 9, 2013 1:10:50 GMT 3
Gorship says,"It would appear that THE JAILOR Had to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." If this is to refute the fact that no man, apart from God's grace, seeks God(Romans3:11), then your answer is insufficient. I think you missed the point that I was simply arguing that "IF" your Determinist doctrines were true then there is a problem with the half-truth in giving the Gospel as "IF" it it were a genuine offer to the person hearing it. Thereby "ALL" your answers trying begin with scriptural food-fights to prove Determinism is correct are irrelevant. My point stands. I would call your constant attempts to go down that road a smokescreen fallacy. Anybody can raise countless arguments in this way while they avoid the direct subject of the argument. You see, I made one simple argument to which you replied but you simply wanted to sway the argument into proof-texting your entire Deterministic system and this always ends up in circular never-ending arguments where no true conclusion can be drawn out. I much rather stick to a specific argument than chase every rabbit that comes out and goes in another direction. I hope you understand what I've been saying to you. Again, even "IF" you proved Determinism to be true it doe not not change my argument so there is no point in me going down that road. Its not where my interests are for a "debate".
There is nothing wrong if you or others want have scriptural food-fights ("discussions") that go on and on with no real direction of reaching conclusions based on specific premises which raise issues and make claims toward that specific conclusion. Scriptural food-fights are good practice for going over the many scriptures but I do not regard these "discussions" as "debates" in the sense that I prefer a debate that sticks to the claims made and that works to draw a true conclusion on those specific claims. I'm sure many here or on the new site I attend (which you are welcome to visit) would be glad to have never-ending scriptural food-fights until the cows the come home. That said, "if" the subject where "seeking God" I might be glad to engage in that debate, but in the same way I (personally) would want to stick to the direct issues of the claim and the meaning of that specific verse and would not go down the smokescreen road of chasing down your entire system and every dogmatic proof-text for it while you try defend the T through P of your system. Thought I should make that clear because didn't want you to think I was objecting to you personally, I simply have other goals for which I base my reasons for being in a "debate". Hope that makes sense. Blessings
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 8, 2013 7:03:51 GMT 3
Gennie says,.... oh, wait; you didn't make any points in your last post. You failed to provide a proof text showing that the Gospel message includes an explanation of the doctrine of predestination. Your point is unbiblical and invalid. Right after you proof-text that you should hold back the bad news that most have been non-preselected from the ability of responding to the Good News. Hmm, maybe I missed the part where you refuted the Biblical instructions I demonstrated which say to preach the whole truths in the Word as a message of light. Nice try with the suggestion I proof-text against your disingenuous exclusions, but I don’t engage in the illogical fallacies of trying to prove or proof-text negatives. Actually find it comical that you would claim a conclusion invalid otherwise, but very typical of Calvinist’ reasoning. I leave you to your misery of hiding behind half-truths in your gospel and your misguided imagination that you can proof-text to me that poor Deterministically Sovereign God had to create robots to get any of them to respond to His less than genuine loving offer of grace to bring Himself glory…
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 7, 2013 23:43:51 GMT 3
Genny says,"Shame on you for suggesting Paul would lie like a Calvinist, hide the "truth" and would make a disingenuous offer of salvation! " Do you realize that making an emotional plea shows that you do not have a valid argument? Paul is only telling a half-truth if you can prove that the Gospel is anything more than the Death, Burial, and Resurrection. Paul writes, "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" So my answer to you is this,"show me a proof text requiring the Gospel to also contain an explanation of predestination". If you cannot do this, then your point is unbiblical and moot. Show you why telling the whole truth (" all" of it) is right instead of having to accept your strange ideas that one should have to hide part of the message of salvation in that it only "truly" only applies to the lucky specially pre-selected few whereby you are forced to have to declare your message using your half-truth Gospel while you try to convince me this half-truth is somehow justified? Sigh, if I must, no problem: (Act 20:27) For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. (2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2Pe 1:2) Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, (2Pe 1:3) According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: (Joh 16:13) Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (1Jn 1:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
(1Jn 1:6) If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: (1Jn 1:7) But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (Eph 4:25) Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. (Eph 4:26) Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: (Eph 4:27) Neither give place to the devil.
(Eph 4:28) Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
(Eph 4:29) Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
(Eph 4:30) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. *cough* BTW, Paul thinking the Holy Spirit of God could be grieved (contrary to your thinking) blows the the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election out of the water! *cough*(Isa 57:13) When thou criest, let thy companies deliver thee; but the wind shall carry them all away; vanity shall take them: but he that putteth his trust in me shall possess the land, and shall inherit my holy mountain;
(Isa 57:14) And shall say, Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumblingblock out of the way of my people.
(Isa 57:15) For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
Here is the WHOLE truth of the Gospel my friend:(Rom 10:9) If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Note: “ You” is used 4 times in this verse. You Determinists will be surprised by how much " you" there is in a book that supposedly says that we do nothing. You have to have a serious set of blinders on to miss that genuine faith must come from one’s own heart; this requires the ability to respond from their own heart, volition, and volition and determinism are logically mutually exclusive any way you might wish to philosophically splice your system together my friend. Proof-text till the cows come home but your doctrinal designs will never defeat clear logical reasoning to draw out the truth, for God reveals His way in Truth!
Here's another fact, if you did preach the "whole truth" to your Calvinist gospel as being only a genuine offer for a predetermined select few who have been pre-selected to have the ability to respond to the "hypothetical" call for faith then such a lie would give the hearer an excuse for not believing: (Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: So you have even a bigger a truth to worry about if you were tell your "whole truth" of your doctrines of pre-determined predestination: You've succeeded in logically declaring God's judgment to give mercy and grace onto the hearers upon the condition of "his" faith as being based on a lie. Remember Deut 32:4??? You seriously need to rethink these misguided ambitious attempts to proof-text that manmade Doctrine of Pre-selected Grace of which you are too ashamed of to tell the whole truth about! Col 2:8.
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 7, 2013 3:20:49 GMT 3
Hide what? This is the Gospel in a nutshell," Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Are you ready to answer some basic arguments? Oh, I see, you believe they were telling the jailer a “half-truth” as they left out the part that if he wasn’t lucky enough to be one of the pre-selected few he “really” had no hope. Or would it be more accurate to say they told him a quarter-truth, being belief/faith is just really “hypothetical faith”? No, my friend Paul wasn’t a follower of Calvin and his Determinist doctrines… No, Paul didn’t offer salvation indiscriminately while believing Jesus only “really” died for a lucky pre-select few. Note Paul extended that offer to “you and your household” would be saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. Did Paul know who or how many were in the jailer’s household??? Shame on you for suggesting Paul would lie like a Calvinist, hide the "truth" and would make a disingenuous offer of salvation! You would have Paul offering Jesus for those whom He never died for??? In the Calvinist system a person must be born again to even respond to the Gospel, did Paul think these people in the jailer’s household were born again before they even heard the Gospel? Paul have some kind of special revelation about these other people, did he??? LOL Do I want to chasing your rabbit trails now? No. Simply your presupposition lead you to believe that Paul must agree to your Determinist system and a half-truth gospel. Wrong! Doesn't change the fact that a half-truth is not the whole truth, or even truth...
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 7, 2013 1:23:37 GMT 3
Dear Genuine Faith, The only problem I have with refuting your posts, is figuring out where to start. Hmmm... Well, I've explained that several times... But seems you just want to impress me with your knowledge of Determinist dogma rather than face the logical consequences to it...meaning having to hide these "truths" when you give your Calvinist gospel.
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 6, 2013 23:52:37 GMT 3
Genuine Faith says,"...God’s Nature of Omnibenevolence..." Huh? God is good, even when He justly condemns the wicked. eph1eleven, Oh, brother! Your theology is seriously messed up in your logical reasoning if you’re in the habit of denying the differences between good and evil as it relates to divine judgment and human responsibility. But first, my entire post tried to pull you back to the subject which you continue to ignore and I told you several times I was not interested in chasing down the typical proof-texts of your entire Determinist system. I don’t need to go into these circular arguments and rabbit chases to make my argument on this simple point, which I reiterated several times and concluded my post with: Response: Methinks you just want to create a smokescreen diversion rather than address the claims of the lack of transparency and genuine hope and mere half-truth in the Calvinist’ gospel message. FYI, going about to proudly proof-text your system isn't going to prove my claim is wrong. If these things bother you so much that you have to resort to fallaciously changing the subject in the argument maybe should consider what is at the heart of your Determinist system and begin reverting back. Meditated on Col 2:8 yet? But I’ll humor you for a minute. You are correct IF you are saying God is ONLY Good and nothing evil EVER comes from Him. And correct that He , “JUSTLY” being the key word here, condemns the wicked. What you fail to recognize is this is done by His “JUDGMENT” involves mercy and a promise to all those that He made (His perfect work) which is made in TRUTH – ALWAYS. Read and understand the TRUTH of God’s Nature along with His ways of judgment: (Deu 32:4) He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. Yet, all you can see through those Calvinist glasses is God predetermining men to be evil with no hope of responding to the Gospel and then God judging the wicked for their evil deeds that He supposedly created them to do before the foundations of the Earth! Do you not see the fatalism in your theological system of Determinism ? Is that strawman fallacy supposed to mean something to me??? Do you know the simple differences between “just judgment” and that which is not? (It means one being held response-able without excuse, Rom 1:20, for thei0r actions.) IOW’s do you understand that being “truth” means that that something (“just judgment”) is done in “truth”? Do you understand that God is a God of Truth and all His ways are just judgment in truth? Is this concept of Only Good and Only Just and Only in Truth really that difficult for you to grasp as lining up with the Truth of God’s Omnibenevolent Nature and that such does not equate to your strawman of “God owing man anything” but that from creation He made a promise to all men in Truth??? See the difference? Hint, it has to do with “Truth”… Ever heard of corporate election “IN Christ” Do you realize that Paul mentions the phrases “In Him,” “In Christ,” “In the Beloved,” 11 times in the first 13 verse of Ephesians 1 denoting this predestination of election you speak of as being corporate election “IN Christ”? Which takes us to the Biblical order of salvation for individuals: Hear the Gospel —> Believe the Gospel —> Be Sealed with the Spirit. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, To ignore or to change the inspired, divine order is false doctrine. “Hypothetical faith” !?! Really?!? - God’s gift of grace through faith is based on merely imaginary faith (where are the robot and puppet smileys on this board?! LOL ) – and that is what you suppose God bases His judgment on in Truth, imaginary faith??? It seems your theological system has a serious problem with maintaining truth… Look, I’m not going to spend my time chasing all your proof-text rabbit trails while you continue to demonstrate that you refuse to even address my origin argument pertaining to the issues and claims I’ve made to draw a logical conclusion which demonstrates the “truth” that the Calvinist gospel presents no more than a half truth. My reasoning stands as to why this debate is necessary – which is to uphold the “whole” truth of the Gospel! I’ll leave you with this quote to ponder: “If you take part of the truth, and try to make that part of the truth, all of the truth, then that part of the truth becomes an untruth.” ~ Adrian Rogers
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 6, 2013 4:06:24 GMT 3
This is a brief rebuttal. Your comment is in regard to Gorship's partial quotation of John 3:16. Actually, my comment is in regard to the “biblical” doctrines of God’s Grace in general as they pertain to the true Gospel which should be put into the all the world as a message of hope for all in it. The thread is about, Is the Debate Necessary?, and my answer to that question is “yes” for which I gave reason, namely focusing on the Calvinist failure to be transparent about their predestination beliefs while preaching the “gospel”. A point you have ignored. I’m afraid you’ve jumped to several false dogmatic conclusions here as you begin to attempt to go down a trail to proof-text your entire system which you seem to believe this is some sort of a logical rebuttal to my argument. First, you should understand that you used to be an Arminian and now love to exclaim that you’ve “now seen the light of Calvinism” is what it is - pure meaningless rhetoric, IOW’s your misfortune in adopting a false doctrine is not a logical rebuttal to my argument. Second, your reasoning that I base my theology off a single verse is also a fallaciously rhetorical and a false suggestion. Third, if we were to begin addressing the proud agenda of the common Calvinist to start presenting scriptural proof-text food fights, rather than stick to the topic and address the logic of the argument, which in this case is why the debate is necessary, make no mistake, that I would gladly deal with your false presumption that the entire chapter of Romans 9 “clearly” supports your view and FYI I would likely begin refuting your mislead interpretations of that chapter by putting it into context with the rest of the book of Romans to demonstrate your deterministic conclusions to be false. But this thread is not about the never-ending chasing down of all your Determinist’ proof-texts one by one. That game bores me, seems I’ve outgrown it. LOL! Listen “teacher” you don’t want to go down that rhetorical road with me which you fallaciously attempt to support your view by through claiming your opponent to have a carnal mind. And why, because he does not buy into your scriptural gymnastics to change the simple and clear meaning that a child could understand concerning John 3:16 while you go about force fitting scriptures into your fatalistic theological system as if your interpretations were some kind of truth?!? That (carnal mindedness accusation) was a cultist’ debate tactic, you should be ashamed for trying to support your argument like that… Simply, I tire of hearing the Determinist arguments which attempt to make “world” mean the lucky pre-selected elect while they try to force fit “all” to mean those within that world. If you really want context to John 3 you might to back up and start chapter 1 v 9 rather than hypocritically yank out single proof-texts as you suggested in the beginning of your “rebuttal”. And again, no one has asked you to proof-text and support your view of pre-selected election, I’ve simply stated your gospel message is a half-truth if not transparent when delivering such a message. More proof-text, YAWN, …who is it that the Father gives to the Son? v45 “ Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father”. Those drawn which have come to believe… Here we with the go again with the rhetorical hypocrisy…YAWN. Would you like it if I said, If you’d be an “honest Calvinist” you would actually address the argument I made rather than start this typical Determinist agenda of “chase my proof-text rabbit arguments”? Ah, and perhaps “your” presuppositions are based on a manmade theological which cherry pick and force fits scriptures throughout the Bible to conform to it and maybe you should pay more attention to God’s Nature of Omnibenevolence and start to conform to that. And perhaps you should meditate on Col 2:8 for a while. But, these things are really unrelated to the fact that Calvinists hide their tales of secret election when they give their “gospel” which taken to their true logical conclusions deny hope for “all” in the “world” except those lucky specially pre-selected few. Again, Yes, the debate is necessary because Christians should be prepared to counter the Calvinist gospel of half-truth and despair for most with a message that the Good News is a genuine offer of salvation for all!
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Nov 5, 2013 3:06:16 GMT 3
...its not a gift for a select few, For God so loved the WORLD. It is the message that the gift was pre-determined for only a pre-select few that I find very very disturbing. Where is the "Good News" in that message? Where is the "hope" for all mankind? If one really believes in the Determinist Soteriological System (Calvinism) to be true why would they leave their predestinational beliefs out of their "Gospel" message? How could one preach God's love and tell of His promises while leaving out that these don't apply to all, if that is what you believe? It would seem to me that any ethical person would be open about revealing the "whole" truth about the "Good News" or should feel like liar telling such half truths while leaving out that Jesus didn't die for all! But, thank God the normal Calvinist preaches the Gospel AS IF he were an Arminian! Most of time I have ever heard otherwise is from internet Calvinist. As a matter of fact I can only think of one time I heard a Calvinist refer to that a person might not have been pre-selected and thereby may have no hope as I stood face to face with that Calvinist. We were discussing a person I was witnessing to who wasn't there. I handle the situation calmly and and merely tried to explain to him why he was wrong. This was a new Bible study group I had joined and he looked at the Pastor/leader of the group and said, "We are going to have some trouble with this guy!" I said, "If I were you I'd be more concerned about the trouble you're going to have with God." OTOH, I often find it disturbing when an internet Calvinist is spewing his Determinist Doctrines because of considering that a seeker could be reading this dogma. I've gotten pretty aggressive while trying to pin down a dodging Calvinist to the truths of his logical conclusions. To be frank, if I were ever witnessing to a seeker in person and a Calvinist began spewing his doctrines of pre-selection to that person I expect he would be in for quite a ride! So...I would say debate is necessary and that it may help one defend the truth when it needs to done. What ever you practice you get better at. BTW, Still working out gorship? Yes, I saw your thread asking about steroids on that other site but was boycotting it so didn't get the chance to give my 2 cents so will do so now. Go natural my friend, eat right and train hard! That is all...
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Aug 13, 2013 3:24:55 GMT 3
I like that Himes articulately maintains the logic of man’s volition while he discusses God training the believer, who still has the attributes of self-discipline and still faces real temptations. A believer being disciplined, as a child of God, is yet resisting temptation after the acquisition of virtues brought forth in belief through the graciousness of God, but in part these temptations are met through one’s self-discipline, thus the human’s volition is not suddenly made void because of godly discipline. Cowen seems to look at this “enabling” apart from human discipline and volition. Of course, we (non-Calvinists) should note here that godly discipline becomes logically void without human volition being freely effective in part. Himes rightly refers to the compatibilist view as “odd indeed” if it forgoes the ability to actively resisting temptations and ability to practice self-control as it is made clear from Paul that these human virtues enable the response to godly discipline. If not, as Himes states, how could the believer’s discipline be true??? The Compatibilist’s view always runs into this logical problem of trying to have his determinism both ways, true and not true. Himes rightfully states, “I am uncomfortable with a theology that would say the apostle Paul was truly a slave to sin even after he was converted.” And of course Cowen, would immediately rely on relating any view of a believer actively responding to godly discipline independently and by his own choices, or having the ability to not respond, to the failure to maintain sanctification and thereby the Calvinist will cite the loss of a position of “eternal security” for the believer and jump to that conclusion while “opportunistically” ignoring the logical conclusions to his own determinist doctrines. (Oops, I tend to get a bit aggressive while expressing my evaluations of typical Calvinist’ tactics of debate, but I’ve resigned to work on a commitment of toning that down and use better approaches so I’ll stop there…) Anyway, personally, the point I had wanted to get to is that I don’t, and I don't think Himes does, get hung up on Calvinist’ views on eternal security issues as it relates to a belief that being true in the sense they see it then it necessarily follows that this view would logically hinge to determinism. I see the battle cry of Hyper-Arminianism (that one can lose his salvation) as well as the closely following accusations of Semi-Pelagianism rarely sticking to the actual beliefs of the “non-Calvinist” and further see it as a shame that this fallacious accusation often serves the Calvinist by driving a wedge between the typical correct Arminian view and that of the typical non-Determinist/non-Calvinist. Determinism or even the “illogical” compatibilist view on human volition (as both true/not true ) is obviously not the answer, ability logically can’t be both ways, and biblically it clearly isn’t, so my views of the believer’s security rest with perseverance being God’s gracious gifts of preservation through godly discipline; I think that is what Himes was getting at. The true believer will take to heart that positive action is yet required of him and will respond because of genuine faith as per the purposes of God; while the believer truly possesses libertarian freedoms he genuinely makes the efforts to “work out” his salvation as he matures because of the godly discipline he receives as a faithful believer and child of God. God’s gracious gifts enable him to have godly character and this comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but this guidance does not “determine” the outcome, it can’t and human volition be true, yet the Calvinist typically conveniently sweeps that under the rug with circular arguments and brings up “eternal security” as an all too common effective threat. Himes draws upon Hebrews 12:5-11 regarding true human ability being still in effect for the believer: Heb 12:5-11 (5) And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: (6) For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. (7) If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? (8) But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. (9) Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? (10) For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. (11) Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. My answers, as well as the common answers from “any” informed and credible Arminian as to “how” we persevere relates to God’s providentially rather than deterministically controlling the circumstances in which we live by which we will respond positively because of our “genuine-faith” and this view still maintains our volition within our libertarian freedoms and thereby maintains the big picture that God alone gets all the credit His gracious work in preserving us. But I ramble on and digress…and I got important Chuck Norris-like work to do.
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Aug 12, 2013 13:29:17 GMT 3
|
|
|
Post by genuinefaith on Aug 8, 2013 2:46:50 GMT 3
Yeah I just saw that recently, but don't want to pay 13-15$$ plus shipping and handling (3.99 USD) for just a short article, it actually costs more to buy it from where I live (Israel) so unless they come down on price or make JUST THAT article available, I'll just have to WISH, LOL Understandable, another thought, although not even sure if a subscription to Philosophia Christi would give you access to the article or not...and it would even cost more...but if the subscription was of value to you otherwise you could get two birds with one stone - that would probably be my way.
|
|