Featured "Reprehensible!" is not an argument

I'm refusing to answer for several reasons:

1. You are refusing to answer my questions forcing me to provide an exegesis but not being willing to provide one of your own. No doubt for the purpose of being able to play offense without having to play defense. Good debate tactic, but no dice.

2. In my experience, you have a problem with defining and sticking the use of any given term. (i.e. ordain, decree, determine, permit, allow, etc) You tend to jump between different terms when pressed so as to cloud the matter. I prefer the terms God used to reveal himself, as He must have had a reason for selecting those terms and not others. So, lets both answer the question that this verse presents to us:

Did those detestable things enter his mind or not? Yes or No?

I've answered NO, what is your answer?

 

Good, so we agree that those reprehensible things never entered the mind of God. I'm glad we can agree on something. :applause:

Now, can you explain how that aligns with your teaching that all things flow from the mind of God as the one who decrees all things that come to pass before time began? Thanks

Ironic that I'm the only one who has answered any questions thus far (except this last one where you finally said you agreed with me). I've already told you what I think the 'no' means and what I think God meant by saying that. I've provided my exegesis. Your turn.

 

Not much more that needs to be said as far as my view goes, but at least I've said something, which is more than you can say.

Plus, by admitting that my statement is just a rewording of the verse, haven't you just validated that statement as being equally true? Do you agree that the verse means, "...he is perfectly Holy and sinless and would never come up with (originate) reprehensible ideas like molesting children, or the evil being spoken of here?" If so, just say so and then explain how that aligns with your 'systematic.'

Also, an exegesis includes 'interpretation,' thus a rewording of the text in order to reveal intent of the author and it's meaning would absolutely be within the confines of the exegetical process.

 

So you don't agree with what I said then?

Implication that I'm that I'm boy. How ironically immature of you.

We are done Luke.

 

because many want to keep real free will intact, so that I did 'something" to have God save me, and also many rebel against idea that God would be in absolute control, as that makes him a "monster", and us "puppets/robots!"

 

I do not see Calvinism taught in scripture ... and I do see some aspects of Calvinism taught by the Gnostics and in the writings of Augustine. Remember Augustine was a Gnostic sympathizer and attendee of their services before he became a Christian. He, Augustine, says he did not have the self-discipline to be a member of an Agnostic group, but he did believe their tenets and he introduced some into his Christian theology and writings.

 

The earlier "monster"commentary voids any credibility with me in your grasp on Calvinism.

 

Fine, but it would be nice to give a fuller explanation.

Do a bit of research on Augustine and Gnosticism. Calvin was a great admirer of Augustine. It is obvious that Calvin picked up and incorporated ideas from Augustine ... who got them from the Gnostics, especially from the Manichaeism gnostics.

Augustine claims he rejected Gnostic beliefs later in life, but they did not entirely disappear from his belief system.