[Wondergirl]

2. Do you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes"?

Why only the clause?

[jlisenbe]

Forget it. I'm really not surprised, but still disappointed.

[Athos]

Forget it. I'm really not surprised, but still disappointed.

Jl, to use your style of discussion - you're a pathetic loser. WG is running rings around you and all you do is insult her. You lie and dissemble just like your hero Trump. Yes, imitation is flattery - how well you are proving that.

[jlisenbe]

Jl, to use your style of discussion - you're a pathetic loser. WG is running rings around you and all you do is insult her. You lie and dissemble just like your hero Trump. Yes, imitation is flattery - how well you are proving that.

You love to toss out insults, but to be real clear about you, there is still this.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

I would say that all liberals seem to be afraid to answer questions, but that would include Tal, and Tal has the courage to answer questions. I don't always agree with his answers, but at least he, unlike you, is willing.

BTW, I have not insulted WG. I have challenged her, like you, to answer some questions, and you are both completely unwilling, but insults? Nope.

[jlisenbe]

What I believe:

It is the Holy Spirit who brings faith to the unbeliever and causes him to see the truth of the Gospel.

Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.

***How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ.***

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Well, you've got the "T" in TULIP down pat.

[Athos]

I would say that all liberals seem to be afraid to answer questions,

BTW, I have not insulted WG. I have challenged her, like you, to answer some questions, and you are both completely unwilling, but insults? Nope.

Let me be perfectly clear.

You lost all credibility by substituting "sinners" for "unbelievers" (and conflating the two words). You are blinded by your inability to interpret your own Bible even quoting the Catholic Church catechism to bolster your position - a quotation that was irrelevant to the discussion and which you later backtracked by claiming you didn't care anything about the Catholic Church (or words to that effect).

You then denied your original position - which has morphed into a position equally nonsensical. According to you, you claim that, say, an aborigine living in Australia 20,000 years ago was a sinner condemned to eternal punishment in hell simply because he didn't accept a Jesus he never heard of and who didn't even exist then. Do you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously with that bizarre claim?

Then, making matters worse for you, you attempt to justify/prove the claim by offering Bible verses. All you have done is prove, like the marginal Christian sect to which you belong, that an accurate reading of the Bible is way beyond your skill set (amateur).

You should have quit when this ended yesterday, but you came back for more - like a drowning man gasping for breath. Continue to post all your diversions, questions, and foolishness from your self-appointed pulpit, but the pews are empty.

[Wondergirl]

BTW, I have not insulted WG. I have challenged her, like you, to answer some questions, and you are both completely unwilling, but insults? Nope.

I answered two of your questions to me and asked for clarification on the third question.

As for your insults, here's another one from you: "Well, you've got the 'T' in TULIP down pat." You're dubbing me a Calvinist....

So do you disagree with I Cor. 12:3, "no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit"? Or that faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29)?

How did you get faith?

[jlisenbe]

You lost all credibility by substituting "sinners" for "unbelievers" (and conflating the two words).

I subbed nothing. I can't help it if you are unable to read and comprehend,

You are blinded by your inability to interpret your own Bible even quoting the Catholic Church catechism to bolster your position - a quotation that was irrelevant to the discussion and which you later backtracked by claiming you didn't care anything about the Catholic Church (or words to that effect).

When have I quoted the Catholic catechism?

Then, making matters worse for you, you attempt to justify/prove the claim by offering Bible verses. All you have done is prove, like the marginal Christian sect to which you belong, that an accurate reading of the Bible is way beyond your skill set (amateur).

That made me laugh. Coming from the guy who told me to defend my position without using scripture, that's really rich.

I belong to no sect.

And one more time.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

[jlisenbe]

I answered two of your questions to me and asked for clarification on the third question.

Which two questions have you answered?

As for your insults, here's another one from you: "Well, you've got the 'T' in TULIP down pat." You're dubbing me a Calvinist....

I don't regard referring to someone as a Calvanist an insult. At any rate, when you say, "How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ," then you have the "T" down pat.

So do you disagree with I Cor. 12:3, "no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit"? Or that faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29)?

No. I agree with it completely. However, you have, I think, misrepresented John 6:28,29 as saying that faith is what God does. The Amplified renders it, "28 They then said, What are we to do, that we may [habitually] be working the works of God? [What are we to do to carry out what God requires?] 29 Jesus replied, This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe in the One Whom He has sent [that you cleave to, trust, rely on, and have faith in His Messenger]." So the meaning is that belief in Jesus is what God desires us to do.
We certainly have faith in a great many things, so I would think it likely that we all have faith sufficient for salvation. BTW, consider that to be an example of how to answer a question.

But I still want to know where you answered the question of the clause, "to everyone who believes". Or for that matter a direct answer to whether you believe the 1:16 passage you quoted. You gave a rather long, winding discourse, but never answered if you believe the Romans passage, which a simple yes or no would suffice for.

I suspect you are being evasive because you are plenty smart enough to see that if you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes", then you are acknowledging that the rich promises of the Gospel are only for those who believe, and that means, of course, that there would also be those who do not believe, and hence "unbelievers". That would put you, in your view, on the wrong side of this ongoing debate (I use the word loosely since I can't debate someone like Athos who is afraid to answer questions) and you do not want to allow that to happen. Am I on the right track?

[jlisenbe]

I still think we should use the "answer a question, and then ask a question" format. I would be happy to start with a question from you, but only with the assurance that questions will be honestly and directly answered. Deal?

[Wondergirl]

Which two questions have you answered?

See #60 and #61.

I don't regard referring to someone as a Calvanist an insult. At any rate, when you say, "How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ," then you have the "T" down pat.

TULIP is used to explain Calvinist beliefs. Why did you throw that into this discussion?

You don't agree with the "T" apparently.

However, you have, I think, misrepresented John 6:28,29 as saying that faith is what God does. The Amplified renders it, "28 They then said, What are we to do, that we may [habitually] be working the works of God? [What are we to do to carry out what God requires?] 29 Jesus replied, This is the work (service) that God asks of you: that you believe in the One Whom He has sent [that you cleave to, trust, rely on, and have faith in His Messenger]." So the meaning is that belief in Jesus is what God desires us to do.
We certainly have faith in a great many things, so I would think it likely that we all have faith sufficient for salvation. BTW, consider that to be an example of how to answer a question.

So it's up to each one of us to accept the Gospel message. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it?

And your last sentence is another shaming moment.

But I still want to know where you answered the question of the clause, "to everyone who believes". Or for that matter a direct answer to whether you believe the 1:16 passage you quoted. You gave a rather long, winding discourse, but never answered if you believe the Romans passage, which a simple yes or no would suffice for.

I don't "answer" clauses, half-finished sentences.

I suspect you are being evasive because you are plenty smart enough to see that if you accept the clause, "to everyone who believes", then you are acknowledging that the rich promises of the Gospel are only for those who believe, and that means, of course, that there would also be those who do not believe, and hence "unbelievers". That would put you, in your view, on the wrong side of this ongoing debate (I use the word loosely since I can't debate someone like Athos who is afraid to answer questions) and you do not want to allow that to happen. Am I on the right track?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

[jlisenbe]

Here is 60. I asked if you believed the 1:16 passage. You gave a rambling discourse about "What I believe", but no direct answer.

What I believe:

It is the Holy Spirit who brings faith to the unbeliever and causes him to see the truth of the Gospel.

Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.

***How is it possible for human beings to believe in God? Because the Holy Spirit brings us to faith in Jesus Christ.***

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

Here is 61. "Why only the clause?" That's an answer? I was taught that statements ending with a question mark are actually...questions.

So it's up to each one of us to accept the Gospel message. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it?

Without the Holy Spirit's ability to open our eyes to our sinful condition and the coming judgement of sinners, and His ability to reveal Jesus as the only source of a great, overwhelming salvation, then we cannot be saved. John 16:8. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:

And your last sentence is another shaming moment.

Oh get over yourself. I really don't mean that to be ugly, but good grief. If you want to be treated like a weak, silly female, then ask for it and I'll just abandon conversations with you. If you want to be treated like a mature adult with a robust intelligence, which I certainly think is true, then get with the program and DIRECTLY answer some questions. Which do you want?

You have no idea what that is supposed to mean? Honestly, I think you do. Perhaps not, but with you unable to explain why you will not answer the question about "everyone who believes", I am left to fish for reasons.

[Wondergirl]

Here is 60. I asked if you believed the 1:16 passage. You gave a rambling discourse about "What I believe", but no direct answer.

Rambling?????????

Here is 61. "Why only the clause?" That's an answer? I was taught that statements ending with a question mark are actually...questions.

Yes, it's not rambling. It's my counter question to you.

Without the Holy Spirit's ability to open our eyes to our sinful condition and the coming judgement of sinners, and His ability to reveal Jesus as the only source of a great, overwhelming salvation, then we cannot be saved. John 16:8. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:

Talking about a rambling response. A simple yes or no would have sufficed!

Oh get over yourself. I really don't mean that to be ugly, but good grief. If you want to be treated like a weak, silly female, then ask for it and I'll just abandon conversations with you. If you want to be treated like a mature adult with a robust intelligence, which I certainly think is true, then get with the program and DIRECTLY answer some questions. Which do you want?

Directly -- like you do?

You have no idea what that is supposed to mean? Honestly, I think you do. Perhaps not, but with you unable to explain why you will not answer the question about "everyone who believes", I am left to fish for reasons.

You're on quite a roll today!

[jlisenbe]

Well, you still haven't simply said whether or not you believe the 1:16 passage and I suspect you never will. You are incredibly unable to answer if you accept the "everyone who believes" clause. I zeroed in on that clause since it has a lot to do with question of the fate of unbelievers. I doubt you will answer, however. "Evasive" is your middle name. And yes, I'm shaming you again. You should be. But perhaps you will surprise me and use that robust intelligence to actually directly answer simple questions, but I really have no hope of that happening.

So it's up to each one of us to accept the Gospel message. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it?

You want direct? OK. Here's how it's done. Yes, it's up to us to accept the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit has an essential lot to do with it as I outlined above. Is that direct enough? See how it works?

[Wondergirl]

Well, you still haven't simply said whether or not you believe the 1:16 passage and I suspect you never will. You are incredibly unable to answer if you accept the "everyone who believes" clause.

Please ask a complete question.

You want direct? OK. Here's how it's done. Yes, it's up to us to accept the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit has a lot to do with it as I outlined above. Is that direct enough? See how it works?

I totally disagree with you. That's not how it works.

[jlisenbe]

Amazing. Just completely refuses to answer questions. You and Athos must be brother and sister. I guess Chicago is just a different kind of place.

[Wondergirl]

Amazing. Just completely refuses to answer questions. You and Athos must be brother and sister. I guess Chicago is just a different kind of place.

I answered. Can't you read? (Yes, insulting, isn't it!) So you refuse to answer my questions! Athos is nowhere near Chicago.

[jlisenbe]

You tell me the question of yours I have not answered.

[Wondergirl]

You tell me the question of yours I have not answered.

Here is #61. "Why only the clause?" I was taught that statements ending with a question mark are actually...questions.

[jlisenbe]

And here is the answer from 74. " You are incredibly unable to answer if you accept the "everyone who believes" clause. I zeroed in on that clause since it has a lot to do with question of the fate of unbelievers. I doubt you will answer, however." It was not, however, "only the clause". I also asked if you believed the entire passage as a separate question.

And I was right about getting no answer. Still no answer from you. Crickets. Zero. Nada. Shameful. nuttin. fear. trembling. angst. confusion. listlessness. terror. Typical Chicago zip? No courage. alarm, trepidation, dread, apprehension, fright, horror, dismay, consternation, panic. Robust intelligence? I don't know now. I really thought so, but now I'm not sure.

Call it shaming if you want. In Mississippi we call it "calling someone out". We usually respond to that by showing an utter lack of fear and answering questions fully. I guess we can't expect such things out of Chicago??? Maybe so???