Comments on: Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 6 – James http://www.killerrobotninja.com/proving-calvinism-without-paul-6/ The Mind of Les Lanphere Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:46:27 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 3 – Luke | Killer Robot Ninja http://www.killerrobotninja.com/proving-calvinism-without-paul-6/comment-page-1/#comment-535 Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 3 – Luke | Killer Robot Ninja Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:24:34 +0000 http://www.killerrobotninja.com/?p=606#comment-535 [...] Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 6 – James [...] [...] Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 6 – James [...]

]]> By: Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 4 – John | Killer Robot Ninja http://www.killerrobotninja.com/proving-calvinism-without-paul-6/comment-page-1/#comment-531 Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 4 – John | Killer Robot Ninja Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:23:30 +0000 http://www.killerrobotninja.com/?p=606#comment-531 [...] Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 6 – James [...] [...] Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 6 – James [...]

]]> By: Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 10 – Jude | Killer Robot Ninja http://www.killerrobotninja.com/proving-calvinism-without-paul-6/comment-page-1/#comment-530 Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 10 – Jude | Killer Robot Ninja Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:23:14 +0000 http://www.killerrobotninja.com/?p=606#comment-530 [...] Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 6 – James [...] [...] Proving Calvinism Without Paul Part 6 – James [...]

]]> By: Les http://www.killerrobotninja.com/proving-calvinism-without-paul-6/comment-page-1/#comment-121 Les Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:34:33 +0000 http://www.killerrobotninja.com/?p=606#comment-121 Sorry if it came across wrong. It wasn't my intention to say it had to be one or the other. I was simply saying it wasn't especially Calvinist, but that's not because it was Arminian. I was trying to be honest about my findings while also assuring the readers that it's not because free-will ideas are present (which, I think, would be the natural assumption of a curious reader that has always been taught that free-will is found in scripture). Sorry if it came across wrong. It wasn’t my intention to say it had to be one or the other. I was simply saying it wasn’t especially Calvinist, but that’s not because it was Arminian.

I was trying to be honest about my findings while also assuring the readers that it’s not because free-will ideas are present (which, I think, would be the natural assumption of a curious reader that has always been taught that free-will is found in scripture).

]]> By: A. Davis http://www.killerrobotninja.com/proving-calvinism-without-paul-6/comment-page-1/#comment-120 A. Davis Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:28:15 +0000 http://www.killerrobotninja.com/?p=606#comment-120 "That is certainly not because the book sounds Arminian, but because it sounds like it’s denying justification by faith, itself." FWIW: the fact that it doesn't necessarily have any easily found pro-Calvinist verses doesn't make it Arminian. Its completely possible to be Biblical, yet be neither Calvinist nor Arminian. “That is certainly not because the book sounds Arminian, but because it sounds like it’s denying justification by faith, itself.”

FWIW: the fact that it doesn’t necessarily have any easily found pro-Calvinist verses doesn’t make it Arminian. Its completely possible to be Biblical, yet be neither Calvinist nor Arminian.

]]>