[Cross Reference]

[quote=Choleric;3378743][quote=Cross Reference;3378721]

Originally Posted by Choleric

You are strange. Have a good day

Yep but, since average is now looked upon as being normal, who is strange now becomes debatable.

[Choleric]

[quote=Cross Reference;3378835][quote=Choleric;3378743]

Originally Posted by Cross Reference

Yep but, since average is now looked upon as being normal, who is strange now becomes debatable.

Good point. We used to be right. Now we're called "right wing"

[Cross Reference]

[quote=Choleric;3379165][quote=Cross Reference;3378835]

Originally Posted by Choleric

Good point. We used to be right. Now we're called "right wing"

Yeah, watch out for the drones.

[Colossians]

Choleric,

Your post #110 does not take cognisance of what I have written to you are post #108.

You do the old trick of slicing up your opponent's post via the quote button, and then typing your dogma underneath each slice rather than actually taking cognisance of what is said and actually responding to it: you respond to the broad topic of each slice rather than the actual content of each slice.

So as I said, you simply don''t want to learn. Your knowledge is intermediate, and you wish to keep it at that level, parroting what you have been told by your mentors rather than actually cross-examining what you have been told.

I refer viewers who do want to learn, to post #108, and to my thread: "Jesus Christ our sacrifice, not our substitute".

[Choleric]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Choleric,

Your post #110 does not take cognisance of what I have written to you are post #108.

I have no idea what post u speak of. I am on my phone and the post I am responding to is post #1. Not trying to be difficult but you should try posting the post you are having trouble with.

You do the old trick of slicing up your opponent's post via the quote button, and then typing your dogma underneath each slice rather than actually taking cognisance of what is said and actually responding to it: you respond to the broad topic of each slice rather than the actual content of each slice.

It is my intention in breaking up your posts to make my response to each point you have attempted to make. If you feel I have done something intentionally misleading, you should post an example.

So as I said, you simply don''t want to learn. Your knowledge is intermediate, and you wish to keep it at that level, parroting what you have been told by your mentors rather than actually cross-examining what you have been told.

I enjoy learning. It is by learning that I learned that Calvinism is heresy and goes against the clear teaching of scripture.

I refer viewers who do want to learn, to post #108, and to my thread: "Jesus Christ our sacrifice, not our substitute".

It is also by learning that I realized Christ was made sin for me that I might be made the righteousness of God in Him. We switched my sin for His righteousness. I also learned that He died for my sins and not mine only but he sins if the whole world. I also learned that Christ died "for" the ungodly.

Do you disagree with the bible? Did Jesus die "for" the ungodly? Did Jesus die for the sins of the whole world? Anybody's sins?

You probably need to do some learning.

[StanJ53]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Choleric,

Your post #110 does not take cognisance of what I have written to you are post #108.

You do the old trick of slicing up your opponent's post via the quote button, and then typing your dogma underneath each slice rather than actually taking cognisance of what is said and actually responding to it: you respond to the broad topic of each slice rather than the actual content of each slice.

So as I said, you simply don''t want to learn. Your knowledge is intermediate, and you wish to keep it at that level, parroting what you have been told by your mentors rather than actually cross-examining what you have been told.

I refer viewers who do want to learn, to post #108, and to my thread: "Jesus Christ our sacrifice, not our substitute".

Apparently you don't know how to use the program the way it's designed to be used. Choleric did NOTHING wrong. It would seem you like long posts so you can equivocate in them.

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Originally Posted by StanJ53

Apparently you don't know how to use the program the way it's designed to be used. Choleric did NOTHING wrong. It would seem you like long posts so you can equivocate in them.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by drstevej

Easy. Calvinism teaches Adam represented all (not just some) of the human race, while Christ is the representative for all (not just some) of the elect.

That's nice to know. And what does the Bible teach?

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Colossians

You do the old trick of slicing up your opponent's post via the quote button,

That is just so funny considering that you haven't even heard of the quote button and have no idea how to use it yourself.

[beloved57]

col

It doesn't matter what he represented: he was the actual father of all mankind.

Yes, the Natural Head of all mankind, but he was not the Federal Head of all mankind. The serpents seed became his natural offspring, but they did not originally sin in him. Rom 5:14

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

The them are the serpents seed ! They did not sin in Adam's Transgression ! They sinned in their Fathers Transgression.

That he sinned is clear here 1 Jn 3:8

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

And scripture says he is a Father Jn 8:44

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.