Saved , Unsaved, Then Saved Again?

[A nice Bible name]

OK Al, How about considering the question posed regarding the statement God makes as recorded in 32:35 ?..

 

Have you ever considered that scripture before Al? have you ever even read it before Al? is God a deceitful liar Al?, does God condemn the burning of babies in the vally of Hinnon  and state that the thought of carrying out the practice never came into his mind, and yet carry out the very same practice himself by sending the souls of those same babies to burn in Hell???

 

Any chance of an answer without the ad hominem attacks?

[John81]

Wolves fully exposed now outright denying the inerrant Word of God, denying Paul was inspired of God to write what's recorded in Scripture, denying the clear biblical doctrine of hell and eternal punishment, twisting the verses left from their Bible dissection in an attempt to make them say something totally out of context and incompatible with the whole Word of God, attacking Baptists, IFBs, and individual brothers in Christ right here.

[A nice Bible name]

Dave W, you are like the schoolyard coward that sneaks in and throws the sneaky little girly punch while the fight is still in progress....you have described yourself perfectly in your intro picture statement..."DUMB"

[Alimantado]

OK Al, How about considering the question posed regarding the statement God makes as recorded in 32:35 ?..

 

Have you ever considered that scripture before Al? have you ever even read it before Al? is God a deceitful liar Al?, does God condemn the burning of babies in the vally of Hinnon  and state that the thought of carrying out the practice never came into his mind, and yet carry out the very same practice himself by sending the souls of those same babies to burn in Hell???

 

But my point is that if someone is having a discussion with no goodwill then it's almost bound to be unproductive, hence not worth engaging with. And you've really proved that here. You asked a question. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked a logically prior question about one of your premises.

 

You could have addressed my prior question, giving me the info I needed to respond to yours, but instead you went off on a tangent to a completely different question. So why would I now address your latest question given your track record so far? I could spend time answering it only for you to avoid any follow-up questions and go off on another tangent.

[A nice Bible name]

Thanks Al, its OBviously a bit tough for you, perhaps you and DaveW should get together and go and bake some scones for the next mens meeting.

[DaveW]

I do nice scones.
Lost to an ice cream cake in the mother's day bake off in 2011.

[Alimantado]

Any chance of an answer without the ad hominem attacks?

 

...perhaps you and DaveW should get together and go and bake some scones for the next mens meeting.

[A nice Bible name]

Err, wrong Al, since I am not avoiding a question, I am not carrying out an ad hominem attack on you......its simply a mocking comment directed at you in response to YOUR avoidance in answering questions.

 

Math 15:14.

[John81]

I do nice scones.
Lost to an ice cream cake in the mother's day bake off in 2011.

Of all places I had the most delicious scones one time in a hospital cafeteria! Wow but they were good!!

[Alimantado]

Err, wrong Al, since I am not avoiding a question, I am not carrying out an ad hominem attack on you......its simply a mocking comment directed at you in response to YOUR avoidance in answering questions.

 

Math 15:14.

 

As to your original question, I addressed it in post 3 by questioning one of its premises, which is a perfectly valid thing to do. I can't proceed further with your question until you've responded to that.

As to the second question, yes I am refusing to answer it on the grounds that if you won't deal with my response to your first question then how do I know you'll deal with any response I give to this second question? I'm not prepared to be taken on a merry-go-round of tangent questions, each one never dealt with before another is asked.

By the way, I notice that after I quoted you calling my claim 'paranoia', you went back and altered your own post so that the sentence now says 'accusation' instead of 'paranoia'.

[No Nicolaitans]

Thanks, ANBN. The fact that you and Washed Clean 'both' believe the doctrine of Hell is false, 'both' believe that everyone is saved through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross whether they believe in Him or not, and 'both' have started espousing this view within hours of each other further supports my claim that you are both the same person, or at the very least are two people working together.

 

They also look alike! 

[Alimantado]

[Pastor Matt]

Dave W, you are like the schoolyard coward that sneaks in and throws the sneaky little girly punch while the fight is still in progress....you have described yourself perfectly in your intro picture statement..."DUMB"

This comment is uncalled for. While I have not read 1/2 of the comments on this thread, this post is not what Online Baptist is about. Please refrain from personal attacks. 

[Pastor Matt]

They also look alike! 

They are also from the same city.  

[No Nicolaitans]

They are also from the same city.