no hard feelings I hope. anyway, the expression "bonage of the will" is nowhere found in Scripture. I guess I was wrong about Little Toes. there IS something we do agree with on this forum. we don't believe God causes and determines every "elect" and "reprobate" action that has taken place, by "eternal decrees."
also, Almost. sorry if I seemed to 'dodge' a couple of your things. but I meant 'dodge' more in the sense of never really speaking to those things at all.
and maybe you overlooked it, but I DID address the "vanity" "no value" thing. yes, that's one main definition for that. and I said that eye shadow can have some value or use. that you seem to easily "dismiss."
I said that I understand your point about "consistency" with the WT. and I said throughout that you're sharp and reasonable and that your point about "eye paint" is definitely better than the weak desperate "well pagans ate fruit too and urinated and took baths" nonsense that has sometimes been said on this thing.
but not quite the same as BD celebrations and customs. you seem to dismiss the logical and simple inference that Jezebel put stuff on her face FOR A REASON AND TO BE SEEN, AND WOULD MAKE NO SENSE IF THE STUFF SHE TOOK TIME AND EFFORT TO PUT ON WAS NOT GONNA BE NOTICED FROM HIGH UP ANYWAY. so yeah, it's likely it was somewhat "excessive" though she made herself up with hair and whatever to look better overall.
I say "it aint" because can you really honestly definitely pinpoint for SURE that eye paint was ORIGINALLY invented for the sole and only original purpose to "ward off evil spirits" instead of just a facial enhancement ORIGINALLY?? or was it more likely later ADOPTED LATER ON for "warding off spirits" and whatever? and some folks on FUNNY MENTALIST PROTESTANT websites who forbid all kinds of makeup are making a stretch in order to suit their uptight stance on all makeup??
that was what I was saying. don't say that I "dodged" you when you took SO MUCH TIME to write to your points. not perfectly I know, but overall not trying to be dismissive or evasive. so please. don't exaggerate things. I wrote TONS to you more than to anybody, trying hard to see your arguments and take them point by point. not perfectly admittedly. but I tried. but I got no kudos from for that. though I've praised you quite a bit in my postings. thanks a lot. ssheeeeshh.
anyway, as I said, Calving had some intersting points, but was off his rocker in various ways. and to Little Toes. make no mistake. I know what Calvinism is. and hyper-Calvinism. I've studied it for YEARS. heard and red both sides of the tale. Charles Haddon Spurgeon overall was a moderate Calvinist, although at times he would act "hyper" with it. James White is a 5-point Tulip-Sniffing hyper-Calvinist if there ever was one. and so is R.C. Sproul. (though Sproul uses language like "God permitted" which John Calvin would not like. Read his "Institutes On The Christian Religion")
Calvin had his theology so screwed up that you'd need a cork-screw to get it unplugged. as far as true Scriptural accuracy, John Calvin's "five points" are theological BLANK.
the Bible knows no such thing as "bondage of the will". otherwise many passages in both "Testaments" make no sense, and makes God an unreasonable tyrant. bondage of the flesh and nature, yes. "slaves to sin". but "when I WISH WISH WISH (WILL) TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT IS BAD IS IN (THE NATURE) OF ME". Paul "willed" but his "nature" got in the way. so no, not necessarily the same thing.
"He that willeth" in Romans 9 has been explained, but apparently summarily and arrogantly and unreasonably dismissed by the Tulip-Sniffers. so there's just so much I can say and write about it.
also, Romans 9 needs to be looked in context of Paul's whole thing about Israel being cut off and Gentiles being grafted in.
a text without a context is a pre-text.
as I said, Calvin was a very shallow student of the Scriptures. any man that would burn another man at the stake over disagreements about the "trinity" doctrine is not a very careful student of the Bible and not a good follower of the "New Testament."
any man who sprinkled babies, and wanted to impose a Church-State Theocracy, imposing the Laws of Moses as found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, can't be looked at as consistent, Biblical, or reasonable. it's true. he tried in Geneva to implement the Mosaic Torah on the state !!!! so much for "living under grace."
but as far as his "5 points" there are elements of truth IN ALL 5. yes there is a certain "predestination", but of CLASSES of people, and only after Genesis 1:1, and predicated too on FOREKNOWLEDGE.
yes, there's a "perseverence of the saints" but only as a class, not individuals per se. "once saved always saved" is un-Biblical non-Scriptual unreasonable heretical NONSENSE. Matthew 24; 2 Peter; Romans 2; Hebrews 5-8; Revelation 3,4, etc etc,
yes God's Grace is needed, but that does not preclude individual choice and responsibility. and God's "call" and commands are not just for show. there's no such thing as "God's hidden will" as opposed to God's "revealed will". that's un-Biblical speculation and philosophy. a non-Scriptural heresy.
I'm busy now. so that's all I can say about it at this point. if you want to believe that God foreordains every single thing per se, and every individual who will be saved was "eternally decreed" before Genesis 1:1, even before they were born, to be saved, and those "damned" were determined by God to be "damned", regardless of what so many Verses throughout the Bible say against that insane distorted notion, then knock yourself out.
JWs are not Calvinists (thank God) nor are they really "Arminians" totally either. But rather they're Bible-believing Christians. though 90% of you on this site rave against that statement. lol. anyway, nice chatting. have to go now. maybe I'll see you later.
and also, Almost, I did address your stuff for the most part. not perfectly every line, but it was more that you didn't like the answers more than that I "dodged" your points. vanity vanity. no value. this value. whatever. they aint exactly the same. adornment whatever. ciao. I can't keep going on and on forever about this one topic. and that's not a "dodge" cuz I've already written tons every day for almost 2 weeks. let's agree to disagree at least in part.
I'm glad though that you agree with certain things that I've written. anyway, nice seeing you again Little Toes.