Matthew Johnson wrote:

> In article <138.48.09.05.240004000@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard says...
> >
> >
> >
> >wrf3@stablecross.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Bart has ably refuted your "the Calvinist God is a demon" canard.
>
> No, he has done no such thing. All he can accomplish is to show that it is
> internally logically consistent. But that is a _long_ way off from
> refuting the claim, "the Calvinist God is a demon".
>

The problem is that the argument that the free-willer's make to try to
make the Calvinist God a demon is the same argument that shows that the
free-willer's God is also demonic. So either the argument is wrong, or
God is a demon, regardless of which starting assumption is used.

[...]

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

basicallyblues wrote:
> I had written:
>
> > In the same chapter (verse 18) John writes "no man has seen God at
> > anytime" but plenty saw Jesus. Jesus is not the God whom he was
with.
> > Context demands "the Word was a god" or "the Word was a divine
one".
>
> Zach wrote:
>
>
> >Both Jacob (at Peniel) and Moses saw God face to face. How do you
> >explain
>
> The Bible repeatedly says "no man may see God and yet live" so unless
> the Bible contradicts itself the statement that Moses saw God "face
to
> face" must not be literal but figurative for the closeness of Moses'
> relationship with God. Even today we use an expression "we don't see
> eye to eye" that doesn't mean we have never seen eachother. Same type
> of thing.
>
> This is confirned by John 1:18 that says "no man has seen God".

Jacob named Peni-el (Face of God) because he beheld the face of God.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

basicallyblues wrote:

>
> The rest of your post has nothing to do with the Bible or the 1st
> Century so I don't see a reason to respond to the opinions of men.
>
Duh! It had to do with heresies! You responded to none of the 6 pts.
What is interesting is your cutting and pasting. At least you should
give credit to your resources.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <090.08.15.05.768863000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>

[snip]
>So, what's your argument that the trinity existed prior to the 3rd
>Century (you will alo