Romans 6:4 wrote:
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

I Corinthians 15:43 wrote:
It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

I Peter 1:21 wrote:
Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Minnow wrote:
But the dispensation of grace did not begin with the crucifixion. God began dispensing grace to Adam. Furthermore, legal obedience was not the condition of salvation in the Mosaic “dispensation.” The condition was faith in a future sacrifice."
(G Clark)

John 1:17 wrote:
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 3:2-5 wrote:
2if ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words; 4whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ,) 5which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is NOW REVEALED unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Bull Fighter wrote:
There is grave inconsistency among the Mods here. The Arminians are free to throw out such vicious remarks without being removed. But, the same privilege is not permitted to the Calvinist when sharp comparisons demonstrate that Arminian doctrine originated with the serpent in Gen. 3:4. Sometimes they blunt the edge of the sword when they shouldn't. Nevertheless, this serves to demonstrate that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

On top of that you do not have a full-time java computer programer analyzing your posts and creating codes to try to prohibit your posts from getting through, blocking your SA website, and any other technological warfare that would give Calvinism the edge.

Dr. Phil wrote:
"They understand that Calvinism does not have a fighting chance in the arena of ideas."
Maybe you are right WOMI. I should thank them, because when I read such comments as this, it really makes me laugh. I will be missing such comedy. But be that as it may, I consider the truth of much greater value than comedy. As I said, enjoy the bull fight.

Discerning Believer wrote:
jago,
I believe it is only for broadcasters.
For the record, I hold to premil. Reason being, it adheres to a literal interpretation of Revelation rather than to an allegorical. We do understand that there is much symbolism and imagery in Revelation, but it is clearly indicated by the text of the passage. As far as historic premil or dispensational premil, I cannot claim either way. I do not draw an extreme dichotomy between Israel and the church to the point of caiming like the dispensationalist that the believing Jews of the Old Testament aren't part of the body of Christ. I do not believe like the dispensationalist that say that the believing Jews of the OT will not be resurrected at the same time as the NT saints. I do not believe like the dispensationalist that say that the believing Jews of the OT are not IN CHRIST eventhough he died to them and paid the ramsom for their sins.
What I wonder is, was not Jesus a believing Jew and didn't he die under the Old Testament dispensation. If the Old Testament believers are not in Christ, then what are they?

When I asked what are the requirements in SA comments and questions section, Lurker insisted on deleting my question. (instead of simply giving me an answer)
________________________________________

DJC49 wrote:
Your camp merely has an extremely difficult time with the words: "elected," "election," appointed," etc., when it comes to GOD'S sovereignty over salvation. You want man's hands in on the action ... somehow.

Dr. Phil wrote:
Yes that seems to be the standard for censorship: the fear of losing a paying customer.
In such situations, "Truth is hushed that heresy may preach". Therefore, you have the floor WOMI.

DJC49 wrote:
Your explanation was very "simple" indeed.
You note the obvious similarities of the 2 verses (in that there was SOMETHING BEING DONE in each verse!); but NOWHERE is there any evidence that there is necessary connectivity between to two events of Jesus giving sight [MK 10:52] and 2 disciples being sent to find a colt [MK 11:1].
Try again.

That's why Calvinism is the theology of elitism. So long as they keep things complicated, they feel like they have the upper hand.

But it serves to prove once again that the Calvinist God is not sovereign one bit. Calvinism is sovereign.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Anyway I don't know why I am having a cnversation with you, you are banned. If you are a man of honesty and integrity, HONOR IT!

Jesus performed two actions: (1) He said something. (2) He send some people. Result= Jesus said and send.

jago wrote:
WOMI What do you believe evil is if it is not sin?

Discerning Believer wrote:
He is under the impression that we believe that dead means inability.

Discerning Believer wrote:
A dead person is unable to respond

The dehhvastating truth is that every time spiritual death is mentioned in the Bible, nothing is said about total inability. So wherever they get their definition, one thing is for sure: its not from the Bible.

DJC49 wrote:
I've refuted this "AND" as being necessarily connective,