You are an expert at turning things around. You would have made a great Gnostic leader. "All conceivable men" does not have to be in the scriptures in order for the Greek to refer to it in the texts. But what is amazing is that you make this claim,when Calvinists consistently claim that is refers to "World of the elect". This is adding to the scriptures! To say "All conceivable men" is not, since this is a common understand of the term. Did Jesus die for the earth? Did He die for plants, animals, mountains, and everything else He created? No! He died for Men! But world refers to a whole, NOT a part. Are you even reading what I write? I have stated that I am not a universalist and why. Believing in universal atonement does not equal universalism!

This seems like teaching college level math to a 1st grade kid. I clearly exlain things, but you go right back to the same empty claims and accusations. You try to limit the work of Christ to an elect, when the scriptures clearly make it for all, Then you try to use a claim of universalism against me because you are not seeing what I am saying. So you seem to think that "us" in scripture limits atonement and the promises of God only to Christians, when such words only show that it is only "us" who have presently received them and can walk in them. The world cannot because they have not come to Christ in repentance - NOT because Christ did not die for them! And NOT because they cannot repent and receive Christ! Only a Calvinist mind in bondage to a system of false theology can do such. You need deliverance so you can see.

I would never deceive myself in such a way to claim these things! I prefer the truth, thank you very much! And it is NOT so that all men WOULD BE SAVED, but so that they COULD BE SAVED! It is a provision and NOT a payment. Payment is something that is done and completed, while provision is something that is provided in completion, but must be received. The majority will not receive and will by their own choice be damned in eternity, because they abode in their sins instead of having them taken away.

Sorry, but you have not embarrassed me. You don't seem to get the fact that your ideas are not in line with what all Calvinists teach. Although I cannot tell you all that you believe, I am well aware of what many others believe. Most of my statements are in general, based on what the majority claim. I have argued with literally hungreds of Calvinists over the years. Probably more years than you are in age. So I know what they believe. If you disagree with them, that is fine. But this most likely will make you inconsistent with what others even teach. First is the idea of limited atonement. You cannot have Christ dying for all men as you just said and atonement only being for the elect! This is very inconsistent and theological hogwash. Atonement CANNOT be sufficient for all if all cannot receive it. You must make up your own dictionary to explain these things. If you have a debt of $10,000 and I give you $12,000 - then you have suffient funds to actually take care of you bills. But If I say I have all the money for you, but I never actually let you have it, then this is not sufficiency at all! Suffient means, "Enough to meet the needs of a situation". Calvinism just makes it a tease and a lie! This is like saying, I do not have sufficient money to pay my debts, but hey, Bill Gates does! But what good does that do me? None at all! Jesus would not die for all if He had no intention for providing a truely sufficient Atonement for all. So I will agree that Atonement is sufficient for all! But in provision - NOT payment for sins! And it is efficient only to those who receive Him and become children of God by faith, via free will. Why complicate the simple gospel? Yet many have to in order to fit their twisted doctrines.

No, I am denying Calvinism's lying doctrines of devils. You are denying God His sovereign will to allow men free will in coming to Him. As stated, it is all a work of God's grace. So the only thing denied of God is in teaching that His Work on the cross is no capable of drawing men without having to choose them ahead of time.

God does not allow men to come to Him without faith and by what they see in signs. This is not disallowing men to come to Him by election or lack of it!!! This was the point that seem to continuously miss. Enablement comes thru the gospel. IS your gospel so powerless that it cannot be used by God to draw upon men. And in addition the Holy Spirit will draw men. And this is still not enough for you. The simple fact of hunger within a man should be enough when looked at carefully, but nothing will do when the mind is tainted by Calvinism. You can only think they way that Calvinistic theology has trained you to think.

Of course He "could". But He won't do such, because scripture is clear that they must have faith - which is something "we" must do. It is not a work that can merit salvation, but is a simple decision to act on the gospel and grace supplied to us. Many want a sign because they want their sin and are not hungry. So they will only believe in what they can see - until they are emptied of the world and self efforts. This is when most turn to Christ. And this is the only way the desire for a sign can be removed.

Let's get serious now! This was not long after Christ died. The religious leaders had not changed much in this time. Paul went to religious leaders daily and found all he could of them, and knew many of them from years before his own conversion. That is one of the main reasons he would have been there. He never wrote them off as non-elect and unable to come to the Father. You are reading into the context things that are not there.

Reading into it again! This is absolute truth that I have never denied, but rather confirmed in everything I have said. But not drawing doe not say that they are not chosen. It is only saying that as long as they abide in the state of mind they are in then they cannot come unto the Father. It IS NOT a statement of non-election!

Those drawn are those who are hungry and willing to receive. All who "ARE" drawn will be the only ones resurrected on the last day! All others CAN be drawn, but they simply will not be drawn as long as they choose to abide in their sin. Why must you complicate the simplest truth? Hello back? Are you a Gnostic?

Let's look once more:
"For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting".

So who is he talking about here? MAN! Who disobeyed God and drew death upon himslef? MAN! Then who is the "he" that can desire? MAN! Their is NO limitation here! You cannot make this to talk about those whom God causes to desire (Except thru the sending of the gospel and Holy Spirit to draw all men), as it clearly speaks of the sinful state of ALL men, and not just some. It speaks of man;s personal choice here so that he can procure "for himself everlasting life".


Not even close. You have to hope such. I have just explain otherwise, but will wait to see how you twist that around.

You obviously cannot let him speak for himself! You have twisted it all around when it is simple language. You have learned this art from twisting scripture. But it only proves how desperately you need to be right. Forget truth. Lets just win a debate in our own mind and all is good. I have shown the obvious. But no matter how clear the language, you WILL twist it. You have to!

Thats okay. You are entitled to your opinion. Jesus let the Pharasee's say what they wanted to also.

You cannot be serious! I think you are more confused than I thought. When you grow up give me a call and we can talk. You have to make this true in your own mind. But the fact is that they did not agree. This is not all he wrote on the issue, and others wrote of the same and were very clear on the issue. Augustinianism is far different! Time to open the books and look a bit harder. But tru without the Calvinist glasses that want to turn everything around.

Dr. White probably doesn't debate Lavender because he has better things to do, lie engage in debate with Muslims and Mormons and Catholics and Arminians who fairly represent his position. I doubt he wants to deal with another Dave Hunt, and I really doubt he's scared of this one guy who has been responded to by numerous others.

Augustine was not a Gnostic, you have yet to substantiate that. For some reason, you think proving the ECFs were in unity on all matters soteric will somehow convince me they are a rule of faith. But even before I refuted your appeals, there was no reason for me to entertain you on these grounds. I just do it because I like to show that you have no idea what you're talking about, even on subjects you bring up. Your link of Pelagius was worse than I could have caricatured. You say the church was in unison in doctrine, but did they even agree on the canon? No. Did they agree that faith alone was the instrument of salvation? No. Did they agree perseverance was necessary? No. Did they agree who had apostolic succession? No. In fact, the real early church - the apostles! - had to deal with Judaizers and Docetists and false prophets and... you get the picture. That you think after the apostles disappeared the church all got their act together is humorous, especially as you regard Pelagius (of all people, Pelagius! LOL!) as representative of the ECFs when the fact is he lost (cf. the Council of Orange, Pelagius' condemnation, etc. and etc.).

Well, not if you read a-contextually, as you so obviously do.

Wait wait wait. So when I say "all conceivable men" is not in Scripture, you blow a gasket, but you condemn Calvinists for being consistent in their appeal to context? Who is Jesus not praying for in John 17? All men without exception? Lol. Who does Jesus give life to in John 6:33? All men without exception? Are you a universalist? Hello? Do you see the necessity of taking into account what the context says?

So you believe Christ died for everyone. Does God fail to give all people all things? as Paul wrong when he said those for who Christ died also die, and those who die shall be raised with Christ as well? That is why I think you are a universalist, but you aren't answering my questions directly.

Matthew 1:21. Does that look like a mere possibility to you? Really? Romans 8:32. God fails to give us all things, viz. the desire to come to Him? Really? God enables all people to believe? Really?



Source? Or can I expect you to welch out here too?

I didn't say Christ died for all men. To say Christ laid a provision for all men without and to say Christ intended to save all men without exception (died for them) are not equivalent statements. You are simply ignorant.

Non sequitur. That not all can receive it (not all have access to the instrumental cause of justification) does not mean it is an insufficient provision (grounds of justification). You understand the difference between the instrumental cause of justification and the ground of justification, don't you?



The atonement is penal, not pecuniary. Your analogy is fail. Besides, God doesn't "give" us the money, we have to take it (faith). That not all can come to faith does not mean the provision is nonexistent. That's simply fallacious reasoning.

But I don't deny the provision of the atonement is sufficient, so your point is moot. I also don't deny the provision is not the payment. That's actually why your analogy is wrong: because you conflate a provision with a purchase. I don't claim Jesus purchased atonement for all (which would include the condition of reception, faith, in the all things God gives those for whom Christ died). I claim Jesus laid a provision for such that if all men without exception had faith, the atonement would cover every man's sin.

Sir, you have yet to even cite Scripture. Your checks are bouncing because your tush can't cash them

__________________
Facebook Profile

My blog

Where do you find such a doctrine? Not in Romans 8:32! That's monergism, baby!

So why didn't Jesus tell the Jews in John 6 the gospel? If you say He did, why do you say they couldn't come?

This doesn't even make sense. Take a walk to clear your head.

But whether or not we come to faith is predicated on whether or not we desire to do so. So why doesn't God give us the desire to do so? Doesn't He give us all things?

Then you disagree with Pelagius

What have I read into the context? You are the one inferring they are the same leaders, when that is nowhere found in the Acts record. If it is, give me a verse. Put up or shut up.

So you believe they can come while unregenerates? Will you address ROmans 8:7-9, then? Finally?

Where did they receive such a hunger? Hm? 1 Corinthians 4:7 ring a bell? But wait! Why don't all hunger, then, if not because not all men are given their desire?



Agreed! But nowhere in the text does it state that man effects his own desires! You have read that into the passage.

The rest of this is just nonsensical garbage like "you just want to win" and "grow up" and general boo hoo-ing, and as it's too pathetic for me to dignify with a response, later

__________________
Facebook Profile

My blog

If he was not afraid, then he would debate a guy who has written an indepth book against his own writing, and has a huge amount of support from other men of great credibility. These other men who have responded mainly confront his honorary degree, which actually says a lot of a persons knowledge in itself. But they have to use it against him. The man is 76 years old and has spent countless hours above and beyond what any school will require for a degree. He has also given very good responses to those who have attempted to confront his so-called error, which blow their ideas away. A man of such honor and powerful evidence deserves a response. Especially since White is the one making the claims in his own book. Malcolm has given evidence from several Greek scholars to prove his own points. It is on these issues that White refuses to respond. I do not beleive he can give an honest answer to Malcolm, and therefore will not debate or even talk to him.

Augustine was not a Gnostic, you have yet to substantiate that. For some reason, you think proving the ECFs were in unity on all matters soteric will somehow convince me they are a rule of faith. But even before I refuted your appeals, there was no reason for me to entertain you on these grounds. I just do it because I like to show that you have no idea what you're talking about, even on subjects you bring up.

I never said Augustine was a Gnostic. I said he was a Catholic. But he was afffected by Gnostic teachings, which not only show in his own teachings, but history shows that the Church was infected with pagan and Gnostic beliefs in the early 4th century. You are very foolish to not even consider Early Church teachings that were never disputed within the Church, and of whom were taught by the Apostles themselves. This is convenient for you to reject them, but not convenient for truth sake. We cannot determine truth by the early Church alone, but they do serve as historical evidence of truth. To reject this as evidence is pure and purposeful ignorance. Your refutations were empty and vain, a desperate stretch in order to deceive yourself. You have to convince yourself that I do not know what I am talking about so your can deceive yourself in ignorance. You have to read into history like you do the scriptures. Do you disagree with your instructers? Or are they they rule of faith for you?

And I already wrote back and even apologized for that link, because it was not the one I thought it was. I disagreed with many claims on that site.

Obviously the Canon did not exist yet. But they did have the scriptures and they did agree on all of them. The only writings they used that were not a part of the canon later were writings that were in complete agreement with the scriptures and taught nothing different. So they had the scriptures in completion and were indeed in complete agreement. Your point here has no affect on anything.

This depends on exactly what you mean. But they did beleive faith was the agent by which men came to salvation and that all men were capable of having faith via free will. You have addressed Theopholis, but not Justin, Tertullian, and many others who claim the same. You have a lot more twisting to do.

They certainly did!

Did they agree who had apostolic succession? No.

Yes they did!

You are amazing! You miss points, turn around my claims and statments to mean something completely different, and then stand on a straw pedistal thinking you have won a victory. It is evident in the scriptures and in history that the Apostles and the Church had many heresies to deal with. But they Church was not infected by these things doctrinally. They fought against them continuously. Even in the event of problems, the Church always came out vistoriuos in the end. Even the 7 Churches in Revelation were not confronted for false teachings in doctrine. It was other issues they dealt with. Wherever you have people you are going to have problems to deal with. But doctrine can still remain true thru it all, as it did with the Churches. If these Churches did have disagreements, then certainly it would have been recorded. But the opposite is recorded many times.

I saw this coming, which is why I already dealt with it in my last post. You seem to read what you want and ignore the rest. Go back and read again.

Wrong! Nowere in Leviticus does atonement indicate anything penal! I doubt you have read from my site on atonement, which shows this impossiblity. And this is the faulty foundation on which Calvinism rests. A provision is not a true provision if one cannot reviece it.

In a way you do deny it. But I think their is some agreement here as well. Which IS different from what most Calvinists will agrue! I know you want to beleive I am just stupid. But I know what I believe and what others have argued as their own beliefs. And this is why I state what I do. Some is on the assumption that you beleive as others. But then you satte differently and claim that all Calvinists believe that way. This is not true! But even though you disagree with them, this still does not make you right. But going on the agreement that atonement is a provision for all men, that leaves us with the issue of faith. Who can have faith? You want to assume that if all have faith that this somehow equals universalism. First, not all men have faith. I never stated such a think. I only said that all men "CAN HAVE" faith, and ONLY if they will hunger. Then that leaves us with the idea of where hunger comes from. You say it comes from God in elect. If election is true, then man cannot truly have provision for his sins. Provision is something that you CAN receice, NOT something you cannot receive. Hunger comes from within a man, just as every man gets hungry physically on his own, every man can become hungry naturally in different times in life. The question then is, what will they fill themselves with? If they hear the gospel, then they have to make a choice to eat of what God offers or return to the world to eat. God created a gospel and atonement that could reach into each man that will choose Him when they do hunger. And those who hunger for righteousness shall be filled. Althoug men cannot be righteous according to God's standards, they can desire it. Especially once they are so low after seeking on their own in the world. So although atonement is universal, salvation never will be. This is because many men will not choose the right path. Provision is made for them, but they simply refuse it. And by this choice they will be judged.


I have given scripture! You seem to ignore them. But I can give plenty! I have a book I wrote on these issues that are full of them, along with several more studies in the scriptures. Because they are so many I have also sent a few links to my own site. These posts are so long, I am already spending more time than I should be on them and will have to slow down. But anything you want just ask and I will give it. But I am sure that even though you think I have not given scriptures, you are aware of many of them and already have a twist for them, as most do. Scripture lashing goes in circles. So I have gone a different direction this time around. But don't you think for a minute that I cannot give scripture!

YOu amazingly seem to think that Romans 8:32 proves something in your favor. It doesn't! This is not a limitation to us only. Otherwise you would have to exclude those who are yet to come to Christ, since they are not yet a part of "us". The promises of God can only be given to those who are presently in Christ, which at this time is only "us". The fact that He gave His Son for us doed not mean that he has not given Him for others. If this is not your point, then what is it? There is no Monergism in this scripture! You have to read it into it.

God will not draw upon a hard heart. But this does not mean that such a heart will always be hard. This is why many do not get saved immediately upon hearing the gospel. It takes some many years of life and even hardships before repenting and coming to Christ. Jesus knew the hearts of these men ahead of time. The gospel was not yet offered in completion to any man. Not even the Apostles knew the gospel yet! This was something that was yet to come. It was after the resurrection that the gospel would be preach - which would then include these men that could not turn to grace atthat time. it was then that Paul would return to them and try to convince them.

From the beginning men had been given the ability to makes decisions, both good and bad. At the fall men received a gift from the fruit of the tree they were not prepared to receive. yet it did give the ability to know good and evil. So all men have the ability to desire good - especially for their own lives. The idea of this not being true would be foolish and unbelieveable. So when the gospel is presented, there is the ability to recognise it as good, and thus receive it. Especially when there is a testamony of such power and grace, as we are instructed to share as we spread the good news to the world. Why call it good news if a man cannot even see it as such? Man works with the desires of men, and by it draws upon them.

According to the Augustinian accusation of Pelagius, yes I disagree with him. But according to Pelagius own confession of what he believed, then no. Man can do righteousness, but just not unto salvation. He can never be good enough. Pelagius' argument was against the sinning religion that people were getting thru the teachings of Augustine. He saw unrighteousnes in Christians and was grieved deeply. They taught that man was born a sinner and could not keep from sinning. So Pelagius confronted this with the teaching that man could indeed live a righteous and holy life apart from sin. Not that man would never ever commit a sin again! But that he could live completely about any control of sin and sinful habits. Augustine took his teaching and made it some it was not, just as you try to do to me. And I am sure that if I was not around to defend myself and you were to write an article on what I believe, you would call be a universalist and misrepresent many things I have said. This happens almost every time in debates, as it did in history as well. Augustine and Jerome were no different, especially since that hated the fact that Pelagius opposed their teachings and made them look bad. Read your history again and you may see this if you open your eyes. Why trust a Catholic during corrupt times in the Church? At least Pelagius came out from among them.

You have assumed by the fact that they could not be drawn at that time that they would never be drawn. But the gospel had not yet been preached. Teh Holy Spirit had not yet been sent into the world. The Apostles had not yet been aointed to preach the truth in the gospel. The only fact in the passage was that God has to draw or they cannot come. it does not say that they will never be able to come because God has not chosen them. This is what is read into it.

I HAVE already addressed Romans 8;7-9! This speaks of the carnal mind, not just the unregenerate. When a man hears the gospel and he is at a point of humger, his mind is changed by the grace of the gospel - giving knowledge of grace and hope of salvation. A carnal mind cannot please God. It does not say that a carnal mind cannot be changed, transformed, and saved. You again read into it things that are not there. Although I have not yet had time to post a lot of scripture, this is because I have been dealing much which your reading into scriptures, adding to them things that are not there, etc. No carnal mind can please God! This is why we need the work of Christ and to hear all He did for us so we can repent and be transformed. Nothing here states that a carnal minded person cannot be saved. After all, we were all carnally minded before Christ - and many are carnally minded even after Christ.

First, this is not speaking of hunger. It is speaking of anything that we might boast in. Even sinners have no reason to boast. Everything comes from God and He owns it all. Bill Gates billions belong to God and come from Him. Knowledge and wisdom come from God. Talents and abilities are a result of His creation and gifts given to all men. This is not limited to Christians only. Our hunger is a part of God's creation in every man. We have nnothing at all to boast in, except in God and His grace! This does not in any way teach that hunger is not linked to man's choice, but only that every man WILL hunger eventually. Then they must choose what they will eat of. Many make the wrong choice. All DO hunger! But not all the time. Only at certain times in life. Did we always hunger before Christ? Do we always hunger for physical food? No! When we do hunger we have to decide what we want to eat. Then we are not longer hungry, being filled. Many are filled with junk and not hungry as long as they keep doing so. Some that do such get tired of it all and then hear the gospel at the right time, or remember hearing it and have a seed remaining with them.

Romans 8:31 What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?
33 Who will bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
34 Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us

Wow! So Jesus intercedes for all men without exception? Moron.

Exclude them from what? No one can say that God will not freely give the elect all things, because He gave up His Son for them! If He gave up His Son, He's obviously going to do whatever necessary to bring us for whom His Son died to Him. When we come to Him - and we will come to Him - no one can lay a charge against us, for God justifies. Because He was for us, no charge will be able to be laid against us, as His Son will intercede for them. This is very simple. What doesn't make sense to you?

Where is regeneration referred to as a promise of God? Where in Romans 8:32 refer to the promises of God?

He simply makes a new one (Ezekiel 36:26-27). You never responded to my exegesis of that verse.

The preaching of the gospel of Christ is a necessary but insufficient condition for salvation. It's necessary because we must have an object of faith, it's insufficient in that the preaching does not enable the mind of the flesh to submit to or please God. Only when one is in the Spirit via regeneration can and will that happen.

Which does not imply an ability to do good or evil. You have yet to show a passage in which man can do good prior to regeneration. You have yet to deal with Romans 8:7-9, 1 John 5:1, 1 Peter 1:3, &c.

Again I must ask that you give me even one instance wherein Augustine, who quoted Pelagius ver batim in most of his works, misrepresented him. Answer the call or silence your tongue against the saint.

What do you think righteousness is that unregenerate men can do it?

Man is born in sin (Romans 5:12-19). No one taught man was born having personally sinned. Prove otherwise.

I thought the whole church was unified, except Augustine?



Without extrinsic grace!

You claim I do that anyways, you buffoon. The fact is, you cannot explain how God can give us all things such that it is consistent with your view of a weak, impotent God who woos and fails more often than He succeeds persuading people to come to Him. Good grief.

You seem to be confuting modern Catholicism with that of the early church. Catholic means "universal." If not, of course Augustine was a part of the universal church. Of course Pelagius was not. But if you actually mean Augustine was a modern Catholic - a modern Catholic who believed in Total Depravity, Irresistible Grace, Limited Atonement, and Unconditional Election (do you know of such a Catholic?) - then how much more is Pelagius a Catholic? He said we were saved by our merits! With regards to the functions of the will, he said we are saved by our will and action - apart from prerequisite grace to either of these functions - according to the capacity of man with which he was born (which is said to have been caused by grace). In essence, he said the ability to do good or bad was gracious, the choosing of good or bad was not of grace. Mix in the fact he denied original sin tainted our nature, and hello! That's salvation by works. That's worse than modern Catholic dogma.

Straw man. I never said they would never be able to come (future tense), I said that could not come (present tense) because they were not presently drawn. If you want to assert they were later drawn, show men. Until then, I will take this passage and John 10:26 to support my contention that only the sheep are enabled to believe. Being a sheep (elect) precedes belief.

You just copied what I've already responded to. I repeat:

So we cannot boast in autonomous desire? Why not? After all, God didn't cause it, we did. Right? Hm?

Tut! You just said we aren't given hunger.

This is rank Pelagianism. You think God graces our capacity but not our will or workings. You might have fooled someone who has never read Pelagius, but you can't fool me.

Where is your support??? Close Pelagius and pick up your Bible!

__________________
Facebook Profile

My blog

His book is not in depth, the links I provided show that. Besides, Hreb has written books against my posts. That doesn't any more incline me to respond to his stupidity than it would if he wrote 2 sentences. White probably doesn't want to give this guy credibility he doesn't deserve. He showed Lavender was wrong once, why do it over and over again? Again, Dr. White has better things to do. Do you have any inkling of the amount of time he spends learning Arabic, hosting a radio program, being a pastor, teaching at a college, and traveling to debate KJVOs, atheists, Muslims, Catholics, Arminians, JWs, and Mormons? And he's obligated to respond to this nobody? Please.

Enlighten me! Don't just make assertions, back them up.

Which he renounced. Show me a work of his that teaches anything remotely related to Gnosticism. Come on! Are you going to answer any of these challenges?

Lol. Like the humanity of Christ, Trinity, original sin, canon, justification by works... yeah, the Early Church was much more reliable than we are.



This is why you need to change your criterion of truth from man's word to God's word. Stop focusing so much on the former as your pillar of truth.

What historical evidence? You have yet to show any of it! Moron!

Did I not correct your source about a belief of Augustine's with which I disagree? You are the one citing sources you don't even agree with. Who is more desperate to remain in ignorance? Uh huh.

Yes it did. I'm referring to the OT, not the NT.

Sheer ignorance. I listed heresies above, and I'm not even including antinomianism, Manichaeism, Julianism, false prophets...

And you have not addressed what I wrote to jbh regarding free will and the ECFs.

Lol. Even the apostles were combatting antinomianism, but apparently it didn't exist. Apparently, Marcion didn't exist. Silly me!



Really? So did Augustine or Pelagius have it? How do you know? Which side were Ambrose and Cyprian on? Who did the church vindicate? And yet who do you purport as the saint?

Thanks!

Then why were so many letters written to so many disciples who we so confused and slipping into error? Have you ever read Augustine's Retractations? Short book, long list of heresies that men he knew were seduced into regarding as orthodox prior to rebuke.

Quote me what you think I missed. I'll give you an example by quoting something you missed:

Is Leviticus the only book in your canon? You never addressed Isaiah 53:10. Why was it a problem for God to forebear the sins of OT saints if not because unpunished sins (which Christ was punished for, evincing the justice of God) scorns His glory (Romans 3:25-26, 9:11-15, Exodus 33:15-20)? Why did God forsake Christ on the cross?

You equivocate, as I will show later.

Not all, but most. I did cite Daney, Hodge, Shedd, Piper, etc., right?

No, I deduced by exegesis that all for whom Christ died will freely be given all things, and faith would be a subset of all things (Romans 8:32). I also deduced that those for whom Jesus died therefore died with him, and that those who died with Him will be raised with Him (2 Corinthians 5:14, cf. Romans 6:8). Christ did not intend to save all; hence, not all will be saved.

And here is the equivocation to which I refer. Do you mean that all men cannot receive it because not all men can come to faith, or do you mean that even if all men came to faith they could not receive it? The latter is false, the former is what I believe. If the reprobate would come to Christ, they would receive the provision. They cannot come to Christ; therefore, they will not receive the provision. The onus is on you to make good on your claim one who cannot come has not provision. Counterfactually, however, your allegation is untenable, because I have already stated that men could receive the provision if the counterfactual were true that reprobates can come to Christ.

Source?

Where? I'm not going to traipse about your website looking for them. Post it here. Each time that I ask for substantiation above, just quote a section of your site if needs be. But don't pretend as though you've provided justification from Scripture already, because you have not.

__________________
Facebook Profile

My blog

Even you are ignorant to Early Church history or you just use such to deceive yourself. These claims of yours are far later than what I am talking about. Everyhting I have used to show what the early Church taught in within the first 300 years - specifically the first 200 years. NONE of these doctrines you mention here were disputed within these time frames. It was after 300 AD that these things began to be a problem within the Churches. Heresies did always come in, but they did not remain. They were dealt with, as Paul did in his letters. If they were not then those Churches were rejected as a part of the true Church.

If we were to remove Augustine and Calvin from history, no man would come to the so-called truth of Calvinism. You make think you would, but you do not realize how deep the roots are of this system, which are not Biblical in themselves. I do not stand on any system of theology or that which rose out of Catholic corruption, but that which came from the Apostles themselves. Then I need to stop looking at the former? The Bible is my only source of truth! The Early Church is only a historical evidence that confirms truth to a new level, but is not needed.

This just shows that you do not read or at least do not understand what I am saying. You keep repeating the same things that I have answered, as if nothing was said at all. Then you constantly read into what I am saying and assume things falsely. You make my beliefs into something totally different than what I had said, and then call me a "moron" for what you assume I said. So who is the Moron? Your attitude is not worth a response. You are obviosly are too arogant to receive it anyway. There is absolutely NOTHING you have said that I cannot answer or give support for. But much is in books, articles, and other places I don't have time to retrieve. You ought to read Malcolms writings yourself to see his own claims, and actually read from my site on the early Church, and the early Church writings themselves. NOT later writings! But those within the first 300 years. But mostly within 200 years. You assume a lot you obviously do not know. Your pride and arrogance leads you.

Heresies began with Simon the Sorcerer. This is recorded in history. Then with Valentinus, and then later with Marcion, Basalides, and MANY others. These heresies were well known as Gnostic groups outside of the true Church. Manichaeism was much later. These groups attempted to pull people out of the true Chruch and were successful with many. This WAS NOT something that took place within the true Church that changed their doctrines! Anything they did have enter into a Church was confronted and dealt with by the Apostles or other Churches. If a Church did not change for whatever reason, then they were listed amongstthe heretics. They WOULD NOT have been considered a Church along with the others that taught truth.

Marcion did not exist during the times of the Apostles! He was an early 2nd century heretic. He was the first to boldly teach Antinomianism. This does not mean it did not exist before then. I believe it definately did! But it was confronted as heresy and was not a teaching of the Church, even if some were effected by it for a time. So yes, silly you!

Here we are again. Another thing I DID address! Isaiah 53:10

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand."

Did God come down and bruise Him personally? No! This speaks of God allowing it, as it was His will to provide atonement for men. Remember, God SENT His Son to the world - for this very purpose! So although it was indeed His will, He was not the one who actually did it. Jesus offered Himself. He was not God's offering to Himself. Do I need to post the MANY scriptures that state this? The fact that the Father was at work in it does not mean that He was the direct cause of it. It was the High Priest (Jesus in this case) that had to offer the sacrifice (Himself). Since Jesus offered Himself to this suffering, where then is the punishment by God?

Reading into scripture again.
2 Corinthians 5:14-15

14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:

This says Christ did die for all. Then it simply states that this proves that all were dead - since He would not need Him if they were not.

15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

He died for all, but "they which live" are not all! This is they which receive Him and repent. He does not need to go into detail on this fact. They already understand the simple gospel message. No sense in rehashing. The point here is only that all are dea and that those who come to Him by faith can no longer live for themselves. Very simple. Why wrestle with the scriptures?

You love to complicate things that are so simple. Men are not brain dead individuals. I have explained many times the process in life that brings men to a place of hunger, which then puts them in a position of making a decision - but only after hearing the gospel of grace. Faith is a seed that can be planted in any heart thru the gospel and testimony of Christians. Once the seed is planted thru these things, men can have faith. They have knowledge of the gospel, they have evidence in the Christians testimony, and they have the Holy Spirit to draw upon them once this process begins. What more do they need without a lasso around them to pull them in? God does not force men to salvation! He places them into a place of choice. To choose blessing of cursing. God draws upon what HE created within a man, but NOT irresistably, forcefully, or without free will.

I have given my web pages because they are actually not all that long or you can at least scroll down and easily find quotes and scriptures and bypass alot of commentary. This is easier that writing another book here. These posts are way too long as it is. If I were to post these things you want, then I would be rewriting what I already wrote. Sending a link simplifies it and saved room here on this forum. There is A LOT of info. If you do not want to go there than that is your choice. But don't say I cannot provide things when posts are so long. I have more important things to do than argue with an arogant prideful person who don't care about truth enough to listen to another view.

I will be dropping out soon, since I have my own forum back up again. I pray God's blessing upon you in all truth!!! Really! And yes, I pray the same for myself, always.

Oh? Justification by works wasn't something an early church member like, say, Paul had to deal with? Docetism wasn't something someone like, say, John specifically rebuked?

You're assuming no one would read their Bibles... you know, a Christian's rule of faith? I never even heard of Calvin or read Augustine prior to accepting TULIP.

I am the only one appealing to it, so I beg your pardon if I'm skeptical.

Where? Where have you said these things? Just do what I do whenever I think you have missed something: quote for me that which I missed. When you go with the "nuh uh" defense and don't show me what I'm missing, I'm inclined to think you're backing out.

Then why are you so selfish? Surely you have some Scripture? Surely you have some ECF writer who actually agrees with you? Surely you can do better than a throwaway passage of an obscure work of Theophilus which talks about man prior to the Fall and Revelation 22:17? Right?

What of the heresies within the church? Galatians, Corinthians, Romans... are any of these books ringing a bell? Do you not consider the New Testament to have historical significance as well as spiritual?

I didn't intend to imply otherwise. The fact remains: antinomianism occurred within the first 300 years of the early church.

So a "teaching of the church" is that which the church teaches... but only if it teaches it for an arbitrary amount of time?



Where? Hello? Mr. Lyndon?

He didn't merely "allow" it, He predestined it! Acts 4:27-28. Would you say it was not God who punished Israel merely because Assyria (for example) was the secondary cause with which God predestined to punish Israel? Really? Lol.

What does propitiation mean, Mr. Lyndon?

Do I still need to ask for you to post Scripture? Have you not yet gotten it through your head?

The fact that He inspired the word which says He predestined it to happen, however, does.

In His pleasure in bruising His Son who took on our sins! That's the point of Romans 3:25-26. God would have been unjust if He had forebeared OT saints sins without punishing them. Hence, He was shown to be just when Jesus became propitiation for their and our sins, because it was rather Jesus who was punished.

So you interpret "all" as "all [men without exception] rather than "all [men in Christ]"? Who does the love of Christ compel? Who is Paul writing to?

What? How did you derive that from the text? By what reasoning did you use to show "they which live" are not "they which died with Christ"?

What does Romans 6:8 say?

Never said that. You love to lie.

Ad nauseam. But you have yet to show that this is biblical.

That last one is an assumption. John 6 and 10 indicate otherwise, as I have said. Also, not everyone has heard the gospel. Are you an inclusivist?

Blah blah blah. You can't propagandize me, I see through your baseless teaching. You really feel bold enough to tell me that a man in the flesh can submit to and please God?

I went through one of your links, I'd rather not be asked to do it again. Just post whatever thoughts you have here. Paste it from your website if you like. I don't care. Just start posting something with substance, something with exegesis. No more stalling, please.

__________________
Facebook Profile

My blog