more indept study of Armenian and Calvinist

[Omegaman 3.0]

3 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

For the simple fact it must be resolved with this Scripture

2 Pe 3:9

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering
to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
KJV
as your conclusions must change what the any and all in their simple hermeneutic....

Another basic violation of Scripture of the Calvinist - is making God a respect of persons; when God clearly says
he does not

Ro 2:9-15

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
KJV

Love, Steven

I am not sure I am understanding this, but I will try, taking it a little bit at a time.

"For the simple fact it must be resolved with this Scripture

2 Pe 3:9

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering
to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
KJV"

Not sure how Calvinism is not compatible with that. Are you saying that since God is not willing that any should perish but would have all come to repentance, is at odds with the fact, that he only selects some? (I do wish you would learn to spell things out more clearly, explain things instead of just dropping things out there that just pop into your head, but are clear as a bell in your mind!) Help the obtuse out a bit!

I think I will just start out with that, otherwise my reply will become too long and confusing for others to follow.

[enoob57]

12 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

LOL, I had to look up the word obtuse, so I guess I must be being obtuse, because I am. Further evidence of this comes from the fact, that I have little what the rest of your post just said. To be honest, I find a lot of your posts (except when you are trying to be silly) difficult to understand, though occasionaly you have some really good to say, said really well.

I think you are just so smart, that you end up talking over my head. 

I can't see what your saying about me because I consider myself rather dumb! I have had, here, people who
articulate the same as you have and it frustrates me because I would not be typing it if I did not think
it to be of importance yet the sorrow it brings to me to be, as it is here un-effective, to the considerations!
Shiloh has stated my writing form is poor and that could be... due to the ignorance I have in punctuation and
wording~ it is convoluted to the reader   but although my disdain, early in life, for English class my greatest
abilities in IQ testing lies in reading comprehension... go figure   I noticed the other post you have posted
while I was writing that and see it might continue in this direction so will end here and begin there.
Love, Steven
 

[Omegaman 3.0]

Hmmm,

Two post that I have recently made, have disappeared, that is annoying. One was to hmbld, about free will and some other issues, and the other, well, rather than explain it, I will just post it next, I have a copy of the text.

hmbld, I'll get back to you

[Omegaman 3.0]

Repost of the other missing post from yesterday:

One thing I notice in some of the debates or discussions here on Worthy Christian Forums, is that some people like to state things and expect it to be accepted that what they say is true. They state things in such a way that when they provide their own opinion, they seem expect you to accept it as if it was a fact.

For example, one person said that it is important to note that nothing about the five points of Calvinism are in the Bible. Now if that is a true statement, and that can be demonstrated to be the case, then the debate is over and Calvinism is false.

However, claiming something to be the case does not mean it is the case.

This person said that there is nothing in the Bible about election being unconditional.

I could just as easily say that the Bible says nothing about God being a Trinity. It is actually true that the Bible does not say God is a Trinity, however that does not mean that the concept of God being a Trinity is not taught in the Bible. With respect to unconditional election, what Calvinism is teaching on that point, is that the Bible does not point out any conditions which a person must meet before God will choose them.

So instead of just asserting that the Bible does not contain the concept of unconditional election, the burden of proof should lie on the person making that claim. All they would have to do to substantiate that assertion is to show one single verse which says that God will not choose a person unless some specific requirement has been met.

As you all read through the posts on this thread, ask yourselves: "Is the point which this person is making actually in the Bible, and have they backed it up with verses which when taken in their proper contexts and when compared with other verses or passages of Scripture, demonstrate clearly without speculating, that their point is established.

If they have not done that, then suspend your assessment of the claim until they do so. If and when they fail to do so, and you know of a verse or a passage of Scripture that does substantiate their claim, then by all means share it with the rest of us so that we can learn.

Even then hold on to your idea with a loose grip, until you see that no one has responded in a way that either undoes their interpretation or at least casts doubt upon it.

It is far too easy for us to come into a discussion or a debate with preconceived ideas. Some of these ideas can be very dear to us, we can believe in them strongly, but our faith in an idea, our conviction about it, is not proof of its truth.

So even when we have a strong belief or attachment to an idea, we should be ready and willing to suspend our belief in the idea when confronted with a Scripture which is contrary to what we believe to be true. I could say, that I beleive in free will. Then, based on that beleif, reject a position. However, I should not use by belief in free will, to render a position as incorrect, until I have a thourough understanid of what the kind of free will, we are talking about is, discover if it is absolute, or limited, to what things does it apply or not apply, and also consider, whether we even have the ability, to exercise free will if we indeed have it. We are not to be slaves to our thoughts and feelings, we are to be submissive to God, and subordinate to his word.

Please keep these thoughts in mind as you read through the posts in this thread. Examine each post with an open mind, and be willing to submit to God not as you feel but as you see what it is that he has truly said and what it is that he has not said. It might be a great exercise to start a notebook, and divided into columns, putting down what you see as a strong point for a position in one column, and in the other column alongside of that leave the space blank, so that you have room to add rebuttals or strong points of the other position alongside it.

As this fills out you might notice that the evidence in one column is outpacing the evidence in the other column. Be wary of weighing the evidence by how you feel about it be objective and actually use your mind to determine what it is that is truly being taught.

If you find yourself being in favor of the position with less or weaker evidence, ask yourself why it is that you are not going with the evidence.

That is all I wanted to say in this post. It doesn't mean that the method I am suggesting here is even correct. It is however the method I use as a way to move me from emotional attachment to an idea, and instead move me to the idea which is most likely true.

If you do not think this is a valid way to approach topics and would rather go with gut feelings instead of God's word, you are free to do so.

[enoob57]

1 minute ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Hmmm,

Two post that I have recently made, have disappeared, that is annoying. One was to hmbld, about free will and some other issues, and the other, well, rather than explain it, I will just post it next, I have a copy of the text.

hmbld, I'll get back to you

Do you have moderation of moderators   is the infrastructure complexity in design  

[Omegaman 3.0]

10 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

Do you have moderation of moderators   is the infrastructure complexity in design  

Sanctified gaseous carbon! Are you just messing with me? Your linguistic methodologies confound my cognitve abilities at times!

If I were to try to convert your  text there to the NIV version, I am thinking it might read:

Is there any supervison over those supervising? Does the system here have a built in lack of simplicity?

If I have that correct, then:

No, not much, and it is not so much complex, as it is vague.

Did I answer questions? Were there questions? Were the answers I provided, to the right questions?

ahhhh, it dawns on me maybe . . . .

your first question is exploring the possibility, that a moderator deleted by post!

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Hmmm,

Two post that I have recently made, have disappeared, that is annoying. One was to hmbld, about free will and some other issues, and the other, well, rather than explain it, I will just post it next, I have a copy of the text.

hmbld, I'll get back to you

This is where I am sorely lacking. I do not even see how it is possible to have free will yet limited. I do not yet see a choice between one or the other. So I am not getting some things here obviously.  This hurdle for me is causing confusion.  So, I am looking forward to seeing an exchange concerning this.

[CATerri]

Am I foolish to think both views can be true at the same time?

[CATerri]

Sanctified gaseous carbon ?

[Guest]

Just now, CATerri said:

Am I foolish to think both views can be true at the same time?

Well if they can, it is me that has the inability at this point to understand it. that is why I personally am looking forward to the discussion between those which do. I haven't a clue right now.....