Who is turretinfan

Some opponents of reformation theology attempt to deny that the term justification can be used in the context of He united China through Certain movements recycle old, long-debunked arguments, counting on folks not to realize that these arguments have been forgotten because On Catholic Answers, episode , Dr.

David Anders makes it sound as though the issue of supremacy of the Roman Catholics tend to think it is highly significant that Jesus said that the cup meaning its contents — The Ergun Caner affair saddens me deeply.

Caner is an excellent orator. What gives a result meaning to punishment when it is in the form of a fine or confiscation or execution is not the term which modifies punishment, for there is no term that modifies punishment in the first two of those three examples of punishment. Rather, what gives it a result reading is the nature of the punishment in view.

But the question might legitimately be asked, Does the Greek word translated as punishment in Matthew ever refer to execution in the first place?

Excepting the contextual argument for capital punishment as its meaning in Matthew , execution cannot be confirmed or ruled out in either case. In the Septuagint LXX translation of Jeremiah , however, the word is used to refer to the punishment of being killed. Brannan, K. Penner, I. Loken, M. Hoogendyk, eds. What punishment is that? Used by permission. All rights reserved. The word kolasis refers to the punishment of death again in the LXX rendition of Ezekiel Why should you die, O house of Israel?

Because I do not desire the death of the dying. No, clearly eternal salvation and eternal redemption refer to the everlasting outcome of the verbs save and redeem, respectively. Other similar uses can be brought to bear. Next TurretinFan calls into question the legitimacy of my appeals to two traditionalists from history as support for my understanding of eternal punishment.

In my article I had quoted St. We saw him explicitly saying that it was not in the duration of the act of killing but in the duration of the exile. Second, he is simply wrong. Carvill, , Edwards is making the same kind of statement; i. Instead it is that which swiftly ended the lives of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and which was placed in parallel by Jesus to what the Old Testament described as a valley of slaughter where scavengers consume corpses.

I contend that this serves as contextual evidence for understanding punishment in Matthew as referring to execution.

Date is referring to here attempts to read the shadow into the substance, instead of recognizing that the shadow is just a shadow. Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings? But this flatly contradicts the point of the passage.

I'm not surprised, because he just kept adding to the story, the more he told it. I think what happens in a case like this, it's a tiny increment of change, but when you haven't heard him in years you say, that's a big difference. Anonymous wrote: Butler's assertion that there is no good book on Christianity by Muslims because they are biased should also mean there is no good book on Islam by Christians because they are biased.

Yes, I did assert that. Do you have one to recommend? And please don't tell me Maurice Bucailli. By the way, I did happen to mention that Robert Spencer is secular. I don't consider him a "Christian" scholar. Which part of what you wrote is an intellectual argument to support your drivel?

And you accuse others of being grammar challenged buffoons and foreign ideology supporting hordes, yet you betray yourself by exposing your demonic style harangue that leaves no room for good. And you go on to lambaste without critical answer and even an explanation as to what you want to say if you can say anything in the 1st place.

All I read was base insults by a hate driven tribal warlords and no intelligent being can be won over by such mind boggling, self righteous tribal bigots. Secondly, Bucaille was a Muslim convert and therefore I don't see how one has to propose him as a source on a religion that he was dissatisfied with and left. Thirdly, Bucaille was a Medical Doctor and his work in related to that. I think his biggest work has been The Bible, the Koran and the Science in which he argues that the Koran has a better scientific input than the Bible.

And religion mainly particularly the emotive issues are spiritual and its handling of man, something Bucaille never ventured into. Fourthly, if Spencer is not a Christian scholar, which law and justice makes him a Muslim scholar? Or his lazy reading of butchered Islamic work and his shameful selective cherry picking makes him one? Oh, my God! Fifthly, him being secular doesn't mean he can't be a scholar on Christianity. A well informed atheist can be a scholar on a given subject provided he has the necessary knowledge and proved scholarship.

If he wasn't one, he won't have poised himself as a Christian apologetic, or may be that proves one thing again: his time proven cherry picking career on all sides. Lambasting Islam and Muslims on one hand and dusting Christianity and Christians on the other. And there is nothing difficult in doing that since time immemorial.

Likewise, I have never seen a book on Islam written by Christians that will pass the test of human good and neutrality. Prejudice is paramount on both sides. One difference though, Muslim written books on Christianity are far much more few than Christian written books on Islam; the reason being that Muslim books are mainly to repudiate the spiritual being of Christianity itself.

Corruption in Christian texts and etc. The result of both endeavors varies but both have a certain degree of success. Southern Alfred, …no intelligent being can be won over by such mind boggling, self righteous tribal bigots. Hence the style of argumentation I have adopted here with a view to winning you over. Tribal Warlords Rock! Decide between us which religion is tribal: the religion to which God bore testimony with the sign of tongues and in which the worshipers may worship God in the language they have known since a child, or the religion in which everyone must pray in Arabic.

Please tell me which of these religions is global and which is tribal. Turretin,By saying tribal I mean supporting a specific mindset and seeking consolation in it and dismissing any outside view, culture, religion, ideology, mentality, creed, color and etc. Coming to your question, I think it was only the other day that Latin was stopped as being the only language God understands. And when you judge Muslims that they can only pray in Arabic, I think you are narrowing prayers.

Yes, they use Arabic verses in the 5 prayers they pray, the ritual ones, but that is it. And any other prayer is and can be conducted in any language. Isn't it ridiculous therefore to claim that it is an Arabic religion? Indonesian Muslims alone who never speak Arabic and never use it to deliver their sermons in it outnumber all Arabs Muslims on earth. It is pretty that simple. Beware, if you go along the tribal, racial line, you will find that Christianity has many times proved to be racial.

It is easy to prove. Muslims should respect Christians and vice versa, I think that's what will bring peace to both sides. But the idea of debasing one in order to seek consolation and wallow in intellectual dishonesty is what I dismiss as utter laziness and outright hypocrisy.

Indeed, while there remain many tiny tribes to which God's word has not yet come, it has gone out throughout all the Earth. Thanks"Christ didn't come to bring peace among world religions. Nor did Mohammed, for that matter.

Alfred Southern,I don't understand what happened to this thread. TF's post is about the identity of the real Ergun Caner. He has shown great restraint in the face of all the "embellishments" from Caner by bringing the facts to the fore in a dispassionate way. The credibility of Christians and how they deal with their wayward brethren is the issue at hand, not "tribal warlords and bigots" and other such nonsense which has nothing to do with this post.

But for some reason, we've gone off track. Okay, here it is, then. The truth is, if you do not know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour, you will not be spending eternity in the presence of Him and of the Father and of the Holy Spirit together with the elect angels and the body of believers chosen from all eternity. You have no basis for believing you will ever be complete and in a state of bliss in His presence after you die if you reject Him and the salvation He has accomplished and applied at the cross of Calvary.

Muhammad did not die for you. Muhammad cannot save you. Come to the light, my friend, and through faith embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, the only way of salvation. Cry out to Him. Ask Him for forgiveness and repent of your sins while it is still day, for night is coming—and He will bring you to His bosom and present you to the Father on that great and terrible Day of the Lord. There is salvation in no other in Heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth. Praying for you that you will be blessed in the knowledge and love of our Great Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,Pilgrimsarbour.

And the problem with that is? Is that you can't be in a position to judge others because you ONLY agree with yourself. You are wrong. To what extent? You can't deny that it has been the central language of Christianity despite it not being the language of revelation. What makes you thing that only Arabic works for them? And what's effect? In fact, the Koran states that one of God's signs is that he has created many languages.

That God can't fail to understand his own creation. The Shahada can and is said by any language. It is not a must that it should be said only in Arabic. And there is reason why some people prefer to say it in Arabic. Because the word Allah unlike God which can be turned into feminine or masculine can't. And this affirms Islam's central theme: the unquestionable oneness of God.

On what basis? If Arabs are an extreme minority in Islam, what makes it an Arab religion? Arabic is the language of revelation for Islam, that can't render it an Arab religion. If it were, then 1. Unless of course as a tribal you dispute the intelligence of those 1.

But — again — the prayers that their religion requires are prayers in Arabic. It is not. Islamic ruling is clear on this. The fact that the language of revelation may be learnt for better understanding doesn't mean one has to know or pray in Arabic. And if one were to learn Arabic, it is a bonus anyway. Of the Muslims I know, none speaks Arabic. To what race has Christianity not come? Pretty true for Islam too. Islam has been accepted by almost any nation, tribe ect.

And none speak Arabic.