Search results

I have no problem here at all! But are you saying all humanity is saved? I don't believe that of you! It simply is a simple statement. Whoever believes gets saved! It does not say how they get saved, how they come to believe, why they come to believe or free will or predestination or...

Well I guess you hold to the Armenian flower then. A daisy! He loves, He loves me not , He loves me...........

Well only teh elect can come to Christ. teh natural or unsaved man will never come to Christ on their own. Jesus said that in John and Paul reiterated that in Romans. and 1 Cor. Teh unsaved man cannot please God nor can understand the things of God and no one cam come to Jesus unless the...

Well you made a claim. I am just investigating. I fully gave you th einfo you asked of my "expertise" in the langauges of Scripture. If I said I held a doctorate level understanding of Koine Greek, would you just lay down and believe me?

As for Ezekeil you are using teh Hebrew definition and trying ot make it mean something it doesn't in greek! Yes the corss must be appropriated just ONCE/! Then one is saved for all eternity1 That is the word of God!

And you draw that conclusio how? If the for means repentance moves one to forgiveness I agree. And I formed my theology after I studied the bible. I was as you before I tore into Scripture more than superficially. but if you agree with this definition, then I agree with you : What the...

So you hold a PHD in Koine Greek? What school? What school did you get your masters in Greek from? did you write a thesis? Can I see it?

Wrong! JOhn 3:16 is a simple statement of fact. It does not say who or how or why one believes. Jesus is simply stating that whoever ( as opposed to producing an exhaustive list) will be saved! He uses "whosoever" as opposed to specific names.

I fully agree! That is why I go back to the greek and Hebrew often.

Wrong if you read the full context of what they mean by limiterd atonement. If you believe in unlimited atonement then you believe in universalism.

Nice! where from

that unto is a more grammatically correct translation. "eis" is a preposition that connotes a motion. While "for" can be correct it is misleading as many show when they say things like one can lose their salvation and that repentance means turning from sin (which it doesn't). Also several...

Well I can't speak to what Calvin agrees or disagrees with. but limited atonement in its full definition is biblical. I think they may have used limited atonement for th e"L" to make tulip, though I am not sure.

It seems you seem to think what I may or may not have! So you seem to be sure of your faith and can look into the hearts of others and know if they have faith or not! Are you Jesus in disguise?????

So what is your expertise then? Are you a linguist and what credentials do you present? I can pull from linguistical studies online showing why into or unto is the preferred useage than "for" the least of which I already showed in Strings.

More Greek than Hebrew, but I studied both in bible College. and regularly use the grammar tools supplied en-masse online.

Well I hold to what people call the five points because they are biblical as compared to teh five points or Armenianism proposed at teh council of Dort which are unbiblical.

Says you! But if one confesses Jesus as Lord and trust that God raised HIm from the dead, they will be saved! And I am far from a hyper calvinist or even a calvinist.

Took a year in bible College way way back when and continue ot use the onlione tools and grammar books to guide me in knowing how to use the language. Am I an expert? NO! But I rely on the experts.

Wow are you arrogant! Even Tyndale, Hus, Luther and all the rest had to learn the original language in order to translate it into the language they worked in. Most older translations will do no harm, but in todays age of Laodecia, with the plethora of translations and the subtle changes and...