Search results

Calvinism is not a religion. Calvinism consists of John Calvin's writings/understandings of Biblical Christianity.

LOL! "Can't get enough of you"? I don't even know what that means... So, brushing all silliness aside... No, I think you should try reading what I said again. Wow. Anyway, no, to be very succinct, Jesus saves, and the ark, while only an inanimate object in Noah's story, represents Jesus...

Well, half-right, which seems to be a recurring pattern. But yes, just as fire in the Bible (and other places, too) is not always literal fire, so to is water not always indicative of literal water (H2O). As for the second half of this... well, remark... simplicity is not the issue; rather it...

No, you are totally missing ~ somehow ~ the context of John 3:5. Both before and now, although slightly differently than before, but the result is the same. Let me ask you this: If someone came up to you and said, "I just experienced something I had never experienced before. It was a trial...

LOL! Very strange. But yes, Jesus is most assuredly talking of spiritual ~ administered by the Holy Spirit... "of water and the Spirit" is all one phrase there ~ baptism in John 3... new spiritual birth. It is very different than what we see in Acts 8, where the eunuch ~ who is surely not God...

It would be so refreshing (right, EG?) if Robert would answer a simple question, instead of this constant evasion of the obvious. But alas... Grace and peace!

Well, it was not water that saved Noah, though he and his family did go through water ~ more on that in a moment. But beyond that, if I remember correctly... :)... Noah was in a boat (we call it an ark... :)) the whole time and therefore, quite apart from immersion, stayed quite dry... :) That...

Sure. I mean, there are Catholics, I'm sure, who are truly saved. The "every tongue, tribe, and nation" thing affirms that. :) Just because one has an incorrect understanding of certain things doesn't necessarily make them not Christians. But Catholicism... well, has it's problems, let's...

And this is a direct refutation of what Paul says in Romans 9:16-18 -- "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy... He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills." I'm not sure I would call them "spiritual adolescents"... Yes, in some...

Not at all. You just totally misunderstand that passage. Well... not totally, but still... I don't think I would call it a "disaster," but it is yet another example of folks who, having itching ears, not enduring teaching of sound doctrine and wandering off into myths. And pride is bad...

Yes, yes... "scholars." :) We can all find plenty of people, even "scholars," who say what we like to hear concerning just about anything. I can name just as many "scholars" who will refute those "scholars." Where are we then? Right back where we started, right? Just because they may or...

That's quite okay with me. I, however, will post as I please, and will address whomever I please (as will you, I'm sure). I think what you're really "not interested in," Titus, is being proved wrong. And I can understand that, but, well, iron sharpens iron, my friend. Not what I said at all...

Well, He determines whom He will have mercy and compassion on, for sure. He does not "determine our choices." Our choices are always our own, but if our hearts ~ which God either changes into flesh or leaves as stone ~ remains stone... which, yes, may happen, in accord with God's will... then...

Right, and Peter is quoting there directly from Joel 2:32. The ones that call on the name of the Lord are the ones whom the Lord calls. They ~ the ones who are called by the Lord ~ respond, without fail, to the Lord's call by calling on the name of the Lord. Grace and peace to you.

As I have said, "free will" is not really the issue, it is complete autonomy. Only God, as Creator, is autonomous, He is sovereign over all His creation, of which we are a part. Grace and peace to all.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). We all would do well to read Acts 9 ~ the conversion of Saul ~ again. But particularly relevant to this conversation is Acts 9:18, where we read (notice the order of events): "And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and...

The antecedent of 'this' ("on this rock") in Matthew 16:18 is the same as that of 'this' ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven") in Matthew 16:17. Both occurrences of 'this' refer to Peter's confession in Matthew 16:16, that "(Jesus) is the Christ, the...

Nope. But this "nope" needs a bit of qualification. Two things: a. Repentance and belief only is needed to be "qualified" for Christ's church. b. Water baptism is an sign and seal of the promise, and on our part a public acknowledgment of ~ and even a call on God's promise and absolute...

Thanks, Phoneman. I'm not arguing with what you say; I pretty much agree, except I'd actually say "loved differently," rather than "loved less." God loves his elect in a sovereign, distinguishing way, but this is not necessarily to say that He loves His elect "more." But again, thank you...

So, this is what it comes down to most all the time, right? "Whosoever," I mean. There are two different contexts that 'whosoever' can be used in, and both are valid, but they are very different. And because they are very different, only one of those contexts is correct. So: A. If we say...