Featured Free Will Proves The Sovereignty of God

Well then let us all know when you begin.

 

webdog

:laugh: sure WD....just because I don't beat Usain Bolt in a 100 yard dash does not me I can't:wavey::laugh:

I have better things to do with my time also:wavey:

 

I think most of my posts on this thread deal with scriptures not with making personal attacks. If you think different then all you need is to post the proof.

 

I didn't say I was physically incapable. I could cut some time down by posting a creed, confession or commentary to each verse

:wavey:

 

Why not answer the verses he offers....instead of making arrogant statements? Are you short on time like Webdog???:thumbs::thumbs:

 

Try that then...it might be instructive and offer more than the usual drive by postings:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

Post number two was nothing but a personal attack and false accusations.

 

Like this post?

I prefer to share my own thoughts and opinions gained through study and not parrot others.

 

Here is post #2. Where did I make a personal attack upon James? Attacking his POSITION/INTERPRETATION is not attacking his PERSON.

This is the post, Where did I personally attack James?

 

Personal attack

personal attack

personal attack

personal attack

Personal attack

 

There is no purpose in going verse by verse with you. You take individual verses out of context as a basis, then match your concept of a half powerful God.

Did God need man's help to create the universe? Did God need man to achieve the status of omniscient? Does God need man to help Him carry out his purposes? Does God need man to carry out His plan of salvation?

Have you actually read the Gospels?

 

"according to you logic" is not a personal attack at all but an evaluation and summary of the logic being used by James to defend his position according to my perpsective.

Your final example is not a personal attack either as I expressly state it is his "POSITION" that I am attacking NOT HIS PERSON.

If we defined "personal attack" the way you are doing here then we could never attack the position or intepretation of anyone we disagree with. We could never evaluate their process of logic.

Here is an example of an personal attack "All you Cal's are egotisical proud arrrogant people" - that is a personal attack.

 

Please point me to any post he's made using a Scripturally based argument. All I've seen to date are one-liner quips meant to inflame others. :thumbs:

 

Well, that would be a change of pace for wd to actually crack open Scripture and use it in debate. :type:

 

You should never "attack" any person or position. That is what the problem is. There is a distinct difference between refuting and attacking.

It is arrogant and childish to assert what someone's logic is. And it is an attack on that person. Of which you never get right anyway. There are plenty of other options beside just what you assert. You cannot know what anyone's logic is unless they tell you.

 

This more of a curiosity and not intended as a "set-up" or cheap debate tactic, you'll just have to "trust" me on this. raying:

So here goes;

Isn't it possible that both sides and whatever resides in between are cherry-picking scriptures to promote a point of view or an agenda? Much like a hiker at the base a huge mountain range, looking with limited perspective at only what's in front of them, or more aptly, where they chose to go and stating that, "This before me IS the mountain-entire".

Somehow the awesome, incomprehensible splendor that is God, revealed through His Word is being missed by "our" proximity to the very limited bits and pieces we're able to view and understand at any one time. We're finite specs assuming we can comprehend the infinite, how wonderfully amusing we must be.

I mean really, how much do any one of us actually understand about the God of the Bible and His limits? Some? Most? All?

Theology is wonderful, exciting, educational and important, BUT it is (after all the labels we can attach to it) simply our meager striving to define the infinite with our limited definitions.

Cals seem to limit Him to the space that exists within five theological coordinates. Does God agree to those conditions? Is He truly defined then? His work, His power, His omniscience, His character?

The Free-willers limit Him (or maybe more aptly His ability to work) to the space that exists between their hearts and heads. Is God in any way subject to His creation?

I hope I never reach the point in my life when I no longer find God revealing Himself to me in a fresh new way via His Word. How boring and disheartening it would be to find myself at the point where I know it all. :tonofbricks:

 

You describe yourself perfectly here in all your attacks on the Calvinists on this board. Congrats!!! :wavey:

 

Have you seen anyone about the beam in your eye yet?

Here's one 'pastor'... "The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome..."

 

Shuck and jive

Do you have something to say, or do you just ask questions implying falsehood. Deception is your hallmark.

1) Could God decree all things, whatsoever comes to pass? Yes.

2) Does the Bible teach God decreed all things, whatsoever comes to pass? No.

Did you see an answer to my question? No. Calvinists just shuck and jive, peddling falsehoods one after another. They ask questions of others, but do not answer the questions of others. Hardly biblical behavior.

Again and again the same fallacy is put forth. Since the Bible teaches God does predestine some things, that means God predestines everything, according to His decree, rather than allowing men to make some choices that alter the outcome of their lives. They turn we make plans but God directs our feet into God makes our plans and directs our feet. Not how it reads.

Calvinism requires a wholesale rewrite of scripture.

 

A refutation of a position is an attack upon its accuracy and relevance.

Now, here is an example of a personal attack. Degrading terms directly applied to a poster.

No it is not! It is simply a summary evaluation of his logic from my perspective.

That is simply not true! You can evaluate the logic of anyone by the way they approach, present and defend and explain their position.

I don't think there is anyway not to personally offend you if one dares to disagree with your interpretations and tell you why.

Shall we agree to disagree and lets go on with the OP.