|
|
Post by civic on Sept 9, 2022 9:11:22 GMT -8
I agree with this Doug. I'm not sure Josheb would disagree It would be a fatal error to his denial that an atheist under today's covenant is not included. Even in the Old Covenant a pagan/atheist could come into the covenant! So the covenant was always open to all people! Doug I tagged you in a debate thread and would appreciate your opinion on logic if you get the time to watch the video . Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by TibiasDad on Sept 9, 2022 18:24:52 GMT -8
I know, I saw your post, but haven’t been able to watch the video yet.
Doug
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2022 8:42:34 GMT -8
I agree with this Doug. I'm not sure Josheb would disagree It would be a fatal error to his denial that an atheist under today's covenant is not included. Even in the Old Covenant a pagan/atheist could come into the covenant! So the covenant was always open to all people! Doug To clarify: I never said the gospel didn't apply to atheists. My atheist-relevant comments note the synergist methods of rendering scripture OFTEN do not include or apply to the atheist. When you say, " Even in the Old Covenant a pagan/atheist could come into the covenant!" that is all well and good - and I agree - but I'd like you to show me an example of an atheist ever doing that in the Old Testament. Don't assume it. Evidence it. Because the facts of scripture are as I have stated: - There are very few atheists in scripture.
- What scriptures does state about atheists is often unkind and very deterministic.
- The covenants are always initiated by God without ever asking beforehand, and never initiated by atheists.
- The covenants are always and everywhere the pre-existing context for Christian soteriology and this is made very clear in several places in the New Testament.
- Scripture NEVER explicitly assigns any soteriological causality to the atheist's (or any other unregenerate sinner's) volition.
NONE of that is being addressed and those four points are not the limits of my dissent from "Regeneration follows faith," or the misuses of scripture found in this op. NONE of the people mentioned in those verses are atheists! There are several inconsistencies, holes, in the synergist soteriology when applied to atheists and those holes are huge. The entire opening post demonstrates this! All anyone has to do to prove me wrong is provide me one single example of the atheist precedent in scripture. I will instantly amend my views to include that information on that occasion. Otherwise, I will ask the same of my synergist brothers and sisters: give consideration to the points I have made an adjust your soteriological perspectives accordingly because what I have posted isn't specifically Calvinist; it is wholly, thoroughly, the plan facts of scripture as asserted by scripture itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 11, 2022 21:48:50 GMT -8
It would be a fatal error to his denial that an atheist under today's covenant is not included. Even in the Old Covenant a pagan/atheist could come into the covenant! So the covenant was always open to all people! Doug To clarify: I never said the gospel didn't apply to atheists. My atheist-relevant comments note the synergist methods of rendering scripture OFTEN do not include or apply to the atheist. When you say, " Even in the Old Covenant a pagan/atheist could come into the covenant!" that is all well and good - and I agree - but I'd like you to show me an example of an atheist ever doing that in the Old Testament. Don't assume it. Evidence it. Because the facts of scripture are as I have stated: - There are very few atheists in scripture.
- What scriptures does state about atheists is often unkind and very deterministic.
- The covenants are always initiated by God without ever asking beforehand, and never initiated by atheists.
- The covenants are always and everywhere the pre-existing context for Christian soteriology and this is made very clear in several places in the New Testament.
- Scripture NEVER explicitly assigns any soteriological causality to the atheist's (or any other unregenerate sinner's) volition.
NONE of that is being addressed and those four points are not the limits of my dissent from "Regeneration follows faith," or the misuses of scripture found in this op. NONE of the people mentioned in those verses are atheists! There are several inconsistencies, holes, in the synergist soteriology when applied to atheists and those holes are huge. The entire opening post demonstrates this! All anyone has to do to prove me wrong is provide me one single example of the atheist precedent in scripture. I will instantly amend my views to include that information on that occasion. Otherwise, I will ask the same of my synergist brothers and sisters: give consideration to the points I have made an adjust your soteriological perspectives accordingly because what I have posted isn't specifically Calvinist; it is wholly, thoroughly, the plan facts of scripture as asserted by scripture itself.
The sequence Civic is talking about is one of the major flaws in Calvinism which put it in conflict with the gospel. I`m not sure why you believe this has anything to do with issues surrounding atheism. The book of Romans teaches us that men instinctively know there is a God, so an athiest is someone who has become so decieved that they have suppressed their natural reason and instinct in order to believe their own lies. It`s comparable to being psychotic and God does not appear to have much to say about it. There is a verse to consider though and I`ll cite it for you below. Good Luck. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 8:22:39 GMT -8
To clarify: I never said the gospel didn't apply to atheists. My atheist-relevant comments note the synergist methods of rendering scripture OFTEN do not include or apply to the atheist. When you say, " Even in the Old Covenant a pagan/atheist could come into the covenant!" that is all well and good - and I agree - but I'd like you to show me an example of an atheist ever doing that in the Old Testament. Don't assume it. Evidence it. Because the facts of scripture are as I have stated: - There are very few atheists in scripture.
- What scriptures does state about atheists is often unkind and very deterministic.
- The covenants are always initiated by God without ever asking beforehand, and never initiated by atheists.
- The covenants are always and everywhere the pre-existing context for Christian soteriology and this is made very clear in several places in the New Testament.
- Scripture NEVER explicitly assigns any soteriological causality to the atheist's (or any other unregenerate sinner's) volition.
NONE of that is being addressed and those four points are not the limits of my dissent from "Regeneration follows faith," or the misuses of scripture found in this op. NONE of the people mentioned in those verses are atheists! There are several inconsistencies, holes, in the synergist soteriology when applied to atheists and those holes are huge. The entire opening post demonstrates this! All anyone has to do to prove me wrong is provide me one single example of the atheist precedent in scripture. I will instantly amend my views to include that information on that occasion. Otherwise, I will ask the same of my synergist brothers and sisters: give consideration to the points I have made an adjust your soteriological perspectives accordingly because what I have posted isn't specifically Calvinist; it is wholly, thoroughly, the plan facts of scripture as asserted by scripture itself.
The sequence Civic is talking about is one of the major flaws in Calvinism which put it in conflict with the gospel. No, it is not. The reason it is not, is because the op misrepresents both scripture and Calvinism in several ways. What this means is the op ends up being 1) eisegetic and 2) a straw man. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 8:26:01 GMT -8
To clarify: I never said the gospel didn't apply to atheists. My atheist-relevant comments note the synergist methods of rendering scripture OFTEN do not include or apply to the atheist. When you say, " Even in the Old Covenant a pagan/atheist could come into the covenant!" that is all well and good - and I agree - but I'd like you to show me an example of an atheist ever doing that in the Old Testament. Don't assume it. Evidence it. Because the facts of scripture are as I have stated: - There are very few atheists in scripture.
- What scriptures does state about atheists is often unkind and very deterministic.
- The covenants are always initiated by God without ever asking beforehand, and never initiated by atheists.
- The covenants are always and everywhere the pre-existing context for Christian soteriology and this is made very clear in several places in the New Testament.
- Scripture NEVER explicitly assigns any soteriological causality to the atheist's (or any other unregenerate sinner's) volition.
NONE of that is being addressed and those four points are not the limits of my dissent from "Regeneration follows faith," or the misuses of scripture found in this op. NONE of the people mentioned in those verses are atheists! There are several inconsistencies, holes, in the synergist soteriology when applied to atheists and those holes are huge. The entire opening post demonstrates this! All anyone has to do to prove me wrong is provide me one single example of the atheist precedent in scripture. I will instantly amend my views to include that information on that occasion. Otherwise, I will ask the same of my synergist brothers and sisters: give consideration to the points I have made an adjust your soteriological perspectives accordingly because what I have posted isn't specifically Calvinist; it is wholly, thoroughly, the plan facts of scripture as asserted by scripture itself.
I`m not sure why you believe this has anything to do with issues surrounding atheism. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. That is a serious problem on your end! It's a common problem on the synergist end of the debate. The fact that many synergists (you are not alone in not being sure why it's a problem) don't understand this just makes the problem worse and lends itself to evidence of faultiness in synergistic soteriology. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 8:52:17 GMT -8
The sequence Civic is talking about is one of the major flaws in Calvinism which put it in conflict with the gospel. No, it is not. The reason it is not, is because the op misrepresents both scripture and Calvinism in several ways. What this means is the op ends up being 1) eisegetic and 2) a straw man. You aren`t a Calvinist are you? We need one around here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 8:52:52 GMT -8
To clarify: I never said the gospel didn't apply to atheists. My atheist-relevant comments note the synergist methods of rendering scripture OFTEN do not include or apply to the atheist. When you say, " Even in the Old Covenant a pagan/atheist could come into the covenant!" that is all well and good - and I agree - but I'd like you to show me an example of an atheist ever doing that in the Old Testament. Don't assume it. Evidence it. Because the facts of scripture are as I have stated: - There are very few atheists in scripture.
- What scriptures does state about atheists is often unkind and very deterministic.
- The covenants are always initiated by God without ever asking beforehand, and never initiated by atheists.
- The covenants are always and everywhere the pre-existing context for Christian soteriology and this is made very clear in several places in the New Testament.
- Scripture NEVER explicitly assigns any soteriological causality to the atheist's (or any other unregenerate sinner's) volition.
NONE of that is being addressed and those four points are not the limits of my dissent from "Regeneration follows faith," or the misuses of scripture found in this op. NONE of the people mentioned in those verses are atheists! There are several inconsistencies, holes, in the synergist soteriology when applied to atheists and those holes are huge. The entire opening post demonstrates this! All anyone has to do to prove me wrong is provide me one single example of the atheist precedent in scripture. I will instantly amend my views to include that information on that occasion. Otherwise, I will ask the same of my synergist brothers and sisters: give consideration to the points I have made an adjust your soteriological perspectives accordingly because what I have posted isn't specifically Calvinist; it is wholly, thoroughly, the plan facts of scripture as asserted by scripture itself.
The book of Romans teaches us that men instinctively know there is a God, so an atheist is someone who has become so deceived that they have suppressed their natural reason and instinct in order to believe their own lies. It`s comparable to being psychotic and God does not appear to have much to say about it. There is a verse to consider though and I`ll cite it for you below. Good Luck. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The whole of the Bible also makes it clear mere intellectual assent is not sufficient, efficient, or meritorious. Even demons believe God exists. I myself have cited Psalm 14:1 many times. Pick any thread in this board in which I have posted and you'll see my mention of the foolishness of the atheist. Synergism does NOT address this in a scripturally consistent manner and synergists often misuse scripture by 1) proof-texting verses, and 2) trying to apply verses written about the already-saved as if they apply to those are still unregenerate. This op is an irrefutable example of this!!!!! And we could be discussing this but we're not. YOU are not alone in this regard. I'm not singling you out specifically, but I will exploit your posts to show the salient points of my op-reply are not being addressed. Not a single one of the verses cited in this op actually state, "regeneration follows faith." Not one. They are read, or interpreted, to say something the verses do not actually state. That's the first problem NO ONE IS ADDRESSING! Then there is the problem my taking the exact same verses and showing how they can be read to say the exact opposite position this op asserts. NO ONE IS ADDRESSING THIS! It should be objectively obvious to every single person who knows how to read and understand English most of these verses are written about the already-regenerate, not the unregenerate. NO ONE IS ADDRESSING THIS! This particular problem ALWAYS commits the logically fallacious error of the false equivalence. Always. A fourth problem is what is left out of the op. I have listed several conditions completely neglected in this op. Many of them challenge, if not refute, the synergist position and NO ONE IS ADDRESSING THIS with any degree of substance. What comments have been posted exhibit the exact same eisegetically inferential reading of scripture found in this op. In other words, the responses I have received evidence the very problems I have broached and no one on the synergist side of this discussion even seems aware a problem exists. This inescapably leads to a fifth problem; the problem of the synergist holding his position without all the relevant information. No one is addressing this. Perhaps most importantly, though, is this question of the atheist because the atheist knows God exists but is " psychotic" and does not have any of the ordinary faculties of an unregenerate theist, nor does he have the Spirit by which he might understand himself or the things of God pertaining to salvation - YET on the rare occasion the synergist bothers to consider what scripture says about the fool, it assumes things contrary to scripture about that fool. Method is just as important as content. No one can practice false equivalence and reach a correct position about anything. EVERYONE reading this op should have immediately recognized Ephesians 1:13 is proof-texted, the verse is not about the unregenerate, and conflates sealing with regenerate. Those three mistakes are non-partisan. EVERYONE should have instantly noted it and thereby prompted the author to better exegesis. Instead of helping our brother most of you collaborated with his error and let him get away with it. And now half of you are thinking I'm being arrogant and condescending simply because I make note of something that should be obvious to ALL for the betterment of all. When I am faced with an impeccable case proving a position then I am improved. There's not benefit to fallacious cases. No one is addressing this. This op does NOT prove regeneration follows faith. What it does prove is synergists misuse scripture and everyone is okay with it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 8:57:15 GMT -8
No, it is not. The reason it is not, is because the op misrepresents both scripture and Calvinism in several ways. What this means is the op ends up being 1) eisegetic and 2) a straw man. You aren`t a Calvinist are you? We need one around here. ROTFLMBO!!! I prefer to self-identify as a monergist because Calvin, along with Augustine, Luther, and Arminius all had their flaws but the position God alone regenerates is the one to which I subscribe and there are literally hundreds of threads in many forums where I have argued for and defended Calvinism. I was specifically invited to this forum because of my Calvinist position and ability to discuss Christian topics well. You did not read my early replies to this op, did you? |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 8:57:24 GMT -8
I`m not sure why you believe this has anything to do with issues surrounding atheism. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. That is a serious problem on your end! It's a common problem on the synergist end of the debate. The fact that many synergists (you are not alone in not being sure why it's a problem) don't understand this just makes the problem worse and lends itself to evidence of faultiness in synergistic soteriology. I`m thinking it`s your problem. I dunno what a synergist is or means. and can you explain the connection to athiestism here? Maybe it is my problem because I don`t think I understand your remarks. Can you help me? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 9:12:24 GMT -8
That is a serious problem on your end! It's a common problem on the synergist end of the debate. The fact that many synergists (you are not alone in not being sure why it's a problem) don't understand this just makes the problem worse and lends itself to evidence of faultiness in synergistic soteriology. I`m thinking it`s your problem. I dunno what a synergist is or means. and can you explain the connection to athiestism here? Maybe it is my problem because I don`t think I understand your remarks. Can you help me? Synergism is the technical term for the theological position salvation is a collaboration (a synergy) between God and man. The term covers the whole range of positions from Pelagius, Traditionalism, Arminius, Wesley, and others. I use the term because discussions of the doctrine of salvation tend to be polarized as "Calvinism versus Arminianism" but not all monergists arrive at their position by Calvin. Augustine and Luther were monergistic (both of whom preceded Calvin and assert a view of salvation different in some ways than Calvin). Arminius was a subscriber of total depravity and many Arminians don't know that. Many Pelagians (which is a heresy) incorrectly think they are Arminian when they are not. The same problem occurs with Wesleyans. Traditionalists often argue as if they are Arminian, but Arminius argued vigorously for total depravity and against the Traditionalist view. All of the problems are avoided by understand the fundamental differences between monergism (God alone) versus synergism (God and man together). THE SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN THE DISCUSSION OF SOTERIOLOGICAL DOCTRINE IS THAT POSTERS DO NOT ADEQUATELY UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN POSITION. The SECOND biggest problem is getting the other side's views incorrect. Not seeing how claims made from scripture do not apply to atheists is a problem. If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread and read my original reply to this op you will note I asked one question, and no one has answered it. No one. It is a very valid and op-relevant question. The reason it is a valid question is because if there is no example in scripture of the claims made actually occurring then we should be asking why that is and how veracious can a doctrine be if it can't find such precedence in scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 9:27:28 GMT -8
You aren`t a Calvinist are you? We need one around here. ROTFLMBO!!! I prefer to self-identify as a monergist because Calvin, along with Augustine, Luther, and Arminius all had their flaws but the position God alone regenerates is the one to which I subscribe and there are literally hundreds of threads in many forums where I have argued for and defended Calvinism. I was specifically invited to this forum because of my Calvinist position and ability to discuss Christian topics well. You did not read my early replies to this op, did you? Uh huh. I knew you would be fun to talk to. I only read a handful of your posts and they give an appearence that you were trying to promote some kind of athiest philosophy so you will have to forgive me. I`m still not seeing the connection to athiests but I`ll review these latest posts again and get back to you. To me an athiest is addressed in scripture as a believes not but I`ll see if I can figure out where you`re coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 9:35:51 GMT -8
I`m thinking it`s your problem. I dunno what a synergist is or means. and can you explain the connection to athiestism here? Maybe it is my problem because I don`t think I understand your remarks. Can you help me? Synergism is the technical term for the theological position salvation is a collaboration (a synergy) between God and man. The term covers the whole range of positions from Pelagius, Traditionalism, Arminius, Wesley, and others. I use the term because discussions of the doctrine of salvation tend to be polarized as "Calvinism versus Arminianism" but not all monergists arrive at their position by Calvin. Augustine and Luther were monergistic (both of whom preceded Calvin and assert a view of salvation different in some ways than Calvin). Arminius was a subscriber of total depravity and many Arminians don't know that. Many Pelagians (which is a heresy) incorrectly think they are Arminian when they are not. The same problem occurs with Wesleyans. Traditionalists often argue as if they are Arminian, but Arminius argued vigorously for total depravity and against the Traditionalist view. All of the problems are avoided by understand the fundamental differences between monergism (God alone) versus synergism (God and man together). THE SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN THE DISCUSSION OF SOTERIOLOGICAL DOCTRINE IS THAT POSTERS DO NOT ADEQUATELY UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN POSITION. The SECOND biggest problem is getting the other side's views incorrect. Not seeing how claims made from scripture do not apply to atheists is a problem. If you'll go back to the beginning of this thread and read my original reply to this op you will note I asked one question, and no one has answered it. No one. It is a very valid and op-relevant question. The reason it is a valid question is because if there is no example in scripture of the claims made actually occurring then we should be asking why that is and how veracious can a doctrine be if it can't find such precedence in scripture. Alrighty then, I appriciate the information. Can you share what the answer is for your athiest issue? What answer would you have liked to see? |
|
|
|
Post by rickstudies on Sept 12, 2022 10:28:08 GMT -8
The book of Romans teaches us that men instinctively know there is a God, so an atheist is someone who has become so deceived that they have suppressed their natural reason and instinct in order to believe their own lies. It`s comparable to being psychotic and God does not appear to have much to say about it. There is a verse to consider though and I`ll cite it for you below. Good Luck. Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The whole of the Bible also makes it clear mere intellectual assent is not sufficient, efficient, or meritorious. Even demons believe God exists. I myself have cited Psalm 14:1 many times. Pick any thread in this board in which I have posted and you'll see my mention of the foolishness of the atheist. Synergism does NOT address this in a scripturally consistent manner and synergists often misuse scripture by 1) proof-texting verses, and 2) trying to apply verses written about the already-saved as if they apply to those are still unregenerate. This op is an irrefutable example of this!!!!! And we could be discussing this but we're not. YOU are not alone in this regard. I'm not singling you out specifically, but I will exploit your posts to show the salient points of my op-reply are not being addressed. Not a single one of the verses cited in this op actually state, "regeneration follows faith." Not one. They are read, or interpreted, to say something the verses do not actually state. That's the first problem NO ONE IS ADDRESSING! Then there is the problem my taking the exact same verses and showing how they can be read to say the exact opposite position this op asserts. NO ONE IS ADDRESSING THIS! It should be objectively obvious to every single person who knows how to read and understand English most of these verses are written about the already-regenerate, not the unregenerate. NO ONE IS ADDRESSING THIS! This particular problem ALWAYS commits the logically fallacious error of the false equivalence. Always. A fourth problem is what is left out of the op. I have listed several conditions completely neglected in this op. Many of them challenge, if not refute, the synergist position and NO ONE IS ADDRESSING THIS with any degree of substance. What comments have been posted exhibit the exact same eisegetically inferential reading of scripture found in this op. In other words, the responses I have received evidence the very problems I have broached and no one on the synergist side of this discussion even seems aware a problem exists. This inescapably leads to a fifth problem; the problem of the synergist holding his position without all the relevant information. No one is addressing this. Perhaps most importantly, though, is this question of the atheist because the atheist knows God exists but is " psychotic" and does not have any of the ordinary faculties of an unregenerate theist, nor does he have the Spirit by which he might understand himself or the things of God pertaining to salvation - YET on the rare occasion the synergist bothers to consider what scripture says about the fool, it assumes things contrary to scripture about that fool. Method is just as important as content. No one can practice false equivalence and reach a correct position about anything. EVERYONE reading this op should have immediately recognized Ephesians 1:13 is proof-texted, the verse is not about the unregenerate, and conflates sealing with regenerate. Those three mistakes are non-partisan. EVERYONE should have instantly noted it and thereby prompted the author to better exegesis. Instead of helping our brother most of you collaborated with his error and let him get away with it. And now half of you are thinking I'm being arrogant and condescending simply because I make note of something that should be obvious to ALL for the betterment of all. When I am faced with an impeccable case proving a position then I am improved. There's not benefit to fallacious cases. No one is addressing this. This op does NOT prove regeneration follows faith. What it does prove is synergists misuse scripture and everyone is okay with it. I just finished reviewing this thread and I have to say that I disagree with you pretty much across the board. I think civic more than adequately proved his position with a large number of scripture examples. using scrpture as proof text is basic apologetics so your objection to it isn`t valid so far as apologetics are concerned. You jumped into this thread with a rant on athiests instead of addressing the argument and scriptures given in the OP. Most of your remarks are more of a side show than a rebuttal of the topic. You are swatting at the air and ignoring the scriptures that have been brought forward. Nevertheless, in the interest of having a dialogue let me step onto your page. The reason why your athiest example doesn`t exist in scripture is because an athiest can not be regenerated until they stop being an athiest and believe. But in my mind in the end you proved to me that your athiest question is indeed relevant because the existence of the athiest proves that regeneration cannot precede faith. But of course a lot of the Calvinist confusion regarding regeneration is a lack of understanding regarding what regeneration even is. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2022 10:45:49 GMT -8
ROTFLMBO!!! I prefer to self-identify as a monergist because Calvin, along with Augustine, Luther, and Arminius all had their flaws but the position God alone regenerates is the one to which I subscribe and there are literally hundreds of threads in many forums where I have argued for and defended Calvinism. I was specifically invited to this forum because of my Calvinist position and ability to discuss Christian topics well. You did not read my early replies to this op, did you? I`m still not seeing the connection to athiests but I`ll review these latest posts again and get back to you. Let's start small. Do atheists ever get saved? Do you believe a sound doctrine of salvation must and should cover the conversion experience or process when an atheist gets saved? Do you think it important, perhaps even necessary to be able to point to a specific example in scripture that supports any doctrine of salvation being asserted? For my part, I will answer all three questions in the affirmative. Yes, atheists do get saved. Yes, sound soteriological doctrine must cover all salvation experiences, whether they be that of the atheist, those subscribing to the harvest religions, or the Jew, the Buddhist, the Muslim, Jainist, Gnostic, and even including the religious Christian who hasn't actually had a conversion experience. Sound doctrine covers them all. Yes, I should be able to point to a specific scripture where what I assert is clearly evidenced as stated in by scripture itself and not as I interpret it to fit my point of view. |
|
