No. They are not.Means are still conditions. You wish to continue to evade that fact, Mr. Evador?
No. They are not.Means are still conditions. You wish to continue to evade that fact, Mr. Evador?
I see no evidence of said claims. Just boastful assertions.Much better than youTry and stay focused on tulip- I just proved from a reformed view the U and I in tulip when I was a calvinist and all the calvinists on the forum affirmed it too. You have not done that once on this forum.
![]()
No it is not the sameGod knowing everything is not the same as God causing everything.
That is the "fatal flaw" of John Calvinism's theology.
So, because he could not understand "Foreknowledge" he falsely redefined it as "pre-destined".
Ive never met a disciple of John Calvinism who could understand this, until they do, and then they leave TULIP<> Forever.
I big one lolOoops
OoopsI big one lol
Looks like those I tagged affirmed it’s true and your opinion is meaningless on the issue and has no merit. And the link proves it as well. @PeanutGallery gallery knows I was a Calvinist too since I debated him for over a decade on the other forum as a Calvinist.I see no evidence of said claims. Just boastful assertions.
If there are only two means (Sanctification of the Spirit and Belief in the Truth) capable of allowing a goal to occur (Election onto Salvation), then those two means are conditions of allowing that goal to happen, as they represent the necessary paths or only options available for allowing the desired outcome to occur.No. They are not.
Oh good one using logic and reasoning with themIf there are only two means (Sanctification of the Spirit and Belief in the Truth) capable of allowing a goal to occur (Election onto Salvation), then those two means are conditions of allowing that goal to happen, as they represent the necessary paths or only options available for allowing the desired outcome to occur.
It's called the Necessary Path (a subset of the Critical Path) in Logic.
If all you have is a "No" then it's a slam dunk for non-Calvinist side.
ThatLooks like those I tagged affirmed it’s true and your opinion is meaningless on the issue and has no merit. And the link proves it as well. @PeanutGallery gallery knows I was a Calvinist too since I debated him for over a decade on the other forum as a Calvinist.
Your false assertions about me are as valid as your false assertions about tulip. Neither are true.no facts to back up the claims.
hope this helps !!!
Who said there are only two means??If there are only two means (Sanctification of the Spirit and Belief in the Truth) capable of allowing a goal to occur (Election onto Salvation), then those two means are conditions of allowing that goal to happen, as they represent the necessary paths or only options available for allowing the desired outcome to occur.
It's called the Necessary Path (a subset of the Critical Path) in Logic.
If all you have is a "No" then it's a slam dunk for the non-Calvinist side.
It is meaningless as is there's. I can only go by what I see. What I see is a wannabe.Looks like those I tagged affirmed it’s true and your opinion is meaningless on the issue and has no merit. And the link proves it as well. @PeanutGallery gallery knows I was a Calvinist too since I debated him for over a decade on the other forum as a Calvinist.
Your false assertions about me are as valid as your false assertions about tulip. Neither are true.no facts to back up the claims.
hope this helps !!!
They have 2 Achilles heels. Their other one is their dirt poor understanding of the English Language. Calvinists Recruiters are always ready to swoop down and recruit those who fail their English Comprehension classes.Oh good one using logic and reasoning with themtheir Achilles heel
![]()
It's not our fault you don't know what through means. LOL Your ignorance is not our fault.They have 2 Achilles heels. Their other one is their dirt poor understanding of the English Language. Calvinists Recruiters are always ready to swoop down and recruit those who fail their English Comprehension classes.
What are you suggesting that he was an uncover Non Calvinist all those years?That is their opinion. I see no evidence of said knowledge. I don't even know if you were actually a Calvinist.
What other means are there? I'll get the popcorn.Who said there are only two means??
What are you suggesting that he was an uncover Non Calvinist all those years?
What other means are there? I'll get the popcorn.
2 Th 2:13. Crack open a Bible and you will see the word "through" mentioned twice. Stop embarrassing yourself with your dirt poor understanding of the English Language. Calvinists Recruiters are always ready to swoop down and recruit those who fail their English Comprehension classes.
13 But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
Talk about zonked logic.I mean geesh......like somehow "more means ".... EXCLUDES those mentioned.
Well let's see. How about the resurrection? Regeneration?What other means are there? I'll get the popcorn.
Crack open a Bible and you will see the word "through" mentioned twice in 2 Th 2:13. Stop embarrassing yourself with your dirt poor understanding of the English Language. Calvinists Recruiters are always ready to swoop down and recruit those who fail their English Comprehension classes.
13 But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
Is that what I said? I simply said I don't think he is the Calvinist expert he claims to be.What are you suggesting that he was an uncover Non Calvinist all those years?
Ahhh...here comes the ad homs. Not faring so we'll?Talk about zonked logic.
That's why calvinists are the village idiots in many countries.