Hebrews 6

[makesends]

makesends said:
Typical.
@Eleanor is giving you a sound bit of advice --a warning. She did not say you are without excuse.

Look again.

Eleanor said:
So. . .the word of God states that you "are without excuse" in denying that "what can be known about God is plain;" i.e.. "his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen". . .(Ro 1:19-20

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Not sure what your objection is there to what I said. If your quote of what she said means to you that she is claiming that you are condemned, then maybe you should put it back into the context of everything else she said. Notice the many uses in that context of the word, "if".

But if you can't do that, maybe, supposing the shoe fits, you should wear it.

It seems you may be claiming she misused Romans 1, but you have only presented an alternative translation, as if it made some kind of real difference.

 

[JIM]

But if you can't do that, maybe, supposing the shoe fits, you should wear it.

I responded to you in kind and got banned for a couple of days for it. I think I will ignore your post here as being totally inappropriate.

 

[makesends]

I responded to you in kind and got banned for a couple of days for it. I think I will ignore your post here as being totally inappropriate.

Fair enough.

 

[Mr GLee]

Which has to do with the "law or salvation."

Maybe it's because I am a Paulist, and it is not my intention to present/defend Calvin.

Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

 

[makesends]

Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

Or, maybe, Calvinism defends the ideas of Paul.

 

[makesends]

Mr GLee said:
Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

Or, maybe, Calvinism defends the ideas of Paul.

@Mr GLee , for whatever it is worth, I think that, universally the Reformed, at least, if not those who claim to adhere to actual Calvinism as such, like to think of themselves as believing, adhering to and living according to Scripture, and not to any particular set of tenets. Whether or not they succeed in that may be another question, but at least, consider that in your question above. Not many of any who believe Sola Scriptura, Calvinist nor Arminian, etc, want to think that they make Scripture fit their theology, but that it be the other way around, their theology to be drawn from Scripture.

It is Scripture that we love. Not Calvin, nor any other person is to be followed in the sense that Jesus Christ is. I don't know of anyone who worships Calvin nor what he taught, nor what modern Calvinism teaches.

My beliefs may be Calvinistic, in tone and basic concepts and tenets, but I am not a Calvinist. It would be more appropriate, even, to call myself a Paulist.

 

[Eleanor]

Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

Which ideas do you have in mind?

 

[CrowCross]

Do you think Paul would defend the ideas of Calvinism?

Paul presented out the ideas that Calvin came to understand.

 

[Mr GLee]

Which ideas do you have in mind?

There are a few I did not have a particular one in mind. Do you?