Featured Free Will Proves The Sovereignty of God

Meh...nothing he ever said was really that debateable at all actually...there isn't ANY extant writing of his which could reasonably be used to declare him a "heretic" on anything.

Most of his writing is amazingly non-controversial....but, alas....anything he MAY have written which is un-orthodox, has already been burned ......so....good luck.

That's what Calvinists usually do....they burn the works of those who disagree. What's new? Heck, they'll burn your personal body if your name is "Michael Servetus"..

 

Just a summary note to what I stated above: The elective grace of God is God's undeserving love in saving some when Justice calls for the wholeale just condemnation of all men equally. Apart from God's elective mercy all mankind would only know of God's justice who deserve only justice and no mercy - thus the rest of mankind receiving exactly what they deserve - justice! And so who can cry foul? None! So who are you that replieth against God, that is not fair??? Just Arminians who do not have a true sense of God's Justice.

 

Granted, proof texting must be confirmed by immediate and overall context. However, you have not demonstrated he jerked any text out of context. All you have demonstrated is your own ability to jerk these texts out of context with a full confession that you did so intentionally.:BangHead:

 

Calvinists shuck and jive using misdirection.

To repeat the question: Does the assertion that God did not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future mean the future is not completely fixed?

It is a simple question and not one Calvinist is willing to actually answer it. Go figure.

 

So Luke does it and you remain silent. Selective gleaning of truth.

 

One Calvinist view is simply that God decreed the future, and because He decreed it, He foreknew it. So the WCF point concerns sequence, God's exhaustive knowledge of the future requires by logical necessity that God first decreed that future.

If this interpretation (from a Reformed Theology Website) is correct, then this WCF point does fix the problem of God decreeing each and every sin, thus making God the author of sin.

No wonder I hear crickets rather than Calvinists.

 

You missed the point! Ach ADMITS he is doing it but does not prove that Luke actually did it but only asserts he did it. Note that you are no better than Ach as you do the very same thing "Luke does it" and yet offer no evidence that is so!

 

I don't respond to anyone posting long lists of single verses. Its pointless.

 

Ok, but don't accuse them of jerking texts out of context if you are not prepared to prove it! ACH admitted it and so there was no burden to prove he did. However, neither you or Ach have proved Luke jerked texts out of context but you went ahead and asserted it anyway - empty unproven assertion. He is innocent till proven guilty!

 

Here is a typical effort from Calvinists to claim Calvinism is supported from scripture. What these verses show is God can and does intervene in the circumstances occurring as He allows, and altering the outcome to conform to an outcome He has determined to bring about.

Thus they prove "A" and then Calvinism claims they prove "B."

1) God took the random arrow shot of a person, and caused the arrow to fly to the place that fulfilled God's purpose. Had God not intervened, the arrow may not have hit anyone, let alone the King, and let alone between his armor.

2) When lots are cast, either God causes the outcome or He allows the outcome, thus every outcome is "from the Lord." This verse in no way says does not ever allow a chance event.

3) In a similar fashion, each and every event that occurs in His creation, He either causes or allows. Thus a sparrow cannot fall to earth unless God allows it to occur.

Bottom line, these verses illustrate how God rules over His creation, but do not teach exhaustive determinism.

 

So you are admitting that God can decree all things by permission (evil) or good pleasure?

 

My problem with Ache and his friends is that I believe them to suppress the truth in unrighteousness like the text below states. It is the most vile form of ungodliness I know. Free-willism makes God into some kind of helpless spectator, Jesus an impotent beggar, and the Holy Spirit as a mere respondent to the whim of fallen mankind. It's the exact opposite of what the Bible says about our omnipotence God. He is the Potter and we are the clay. He is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

Yet another arrogant cal stating only cal's are saved.

 

Yep...............................

 

Just because I don't doesn't mean I can't. I have better things to do with my time than to apply the proper hermeneutic to two dozen verses.

 

Ok, but we walk to the beat of different drummers because I don't make assertions that I don't at least attempt to demonstrate the truth of what I assert. If this forum just turned into assertions it would prove nothing and be a waste of time to read or engage in.

 

First paragraph; that's NOT what they say. It's what you seem to infer. I've stayed out and away from the tail-chasing debates. It's bearing little fruit as far as I can tell. That personal stance doesn't make me better or superior (possibly a wimp, though, according to a few predictable characters here), it's just not worth engaging when the other side or either side is screaming too loud and too often to hear.

The opposite of your poor description would be something like... "5-pointers can only understand/comprehend a God that resides in an easily/clearly defined box of humanistic theology." Which too, is limited inference and incorrect understanding.

So I'll retreat once more to my Pollyanna view that "GOD is bigger". He's bigger than free will and dispensationlism and He's bigger than election and whatever number of points Cals would settle on.

 

It would be nice to get back to debating substance and leave all this personal nit picking alone. I may not agree with many but I can say I enjoy the debates because they challenge me to think and dig and formalize my position. However, that only works when we are dealing directly with Scriptures and positions rather than persons.