Poor Old "Uncle Billy"

Now here is the rub, what if you don’t want to be transformed, can I get outa it?

 

The only Calvinists I know are the Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian (Orthodox) churches and they practice infant baptism and jumping the sacraments. Baptists, as the name implys, have a very different vision.

By the way, my wife was born and bred Dutch Reformed. To both her and her mother, all Baptists are nuts... now that’s a true Calvinist!

 

That is what’s called both wishful thinking and a stretch.

 

Listen I didn’t ask you....you have no credentials and no credibility and as far as I can see you are a Presbyterian ala Tim Keller and not a Baptist... so go petal your Reformed sacrimental style theology someplace that cares.

BTW, the sin of all sins for which we are all guilty is hypocrisy not this preposterous claim of idolatry. LOL, really did you get that nonsense from the Presbyterians? To be frank, there is really something Cromwellian in your nature....most unnatural to human beings but to calvinists, it’s the order of the day.

Now if you wanted to refocus your attention to detail onto human nature then step back and look upon hypocrisy because that’s the momma of all sins. There is no one that doesn’t wallow in it (knowingly or unknowingly). We must accept ourselves for what we are. That my Calvinist friend is the secret of a healthy marriage and and body.

 

At long last... I join the “ anyone who dares to confront me that Brian” Good, stick your head in your shell...

And don’t tell me there isn’t allot of differences.... there is a ton. And how do I know this, well for one I was an orthodox Presbyterian

 

He ought to come up with a sound effect to go with his declaration. I liked to use >plonk< back when I used the Ignore List. Makes an easy search term to employ when rubbing people's noses in the fact that they've been on the Ignore List since (fill in date).

Now, now... surely you are aware thatbrian knows more about your personal experiences and beliefs than you do yourself. He even knows what fictional characters affirm as beliefs.



Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

We put Uncle Billy on the prayer list in Sunday school this morning.

 

I temper that with his past commentary

 

My experience has been close to Brian when I first began to come to grips with my own salvation situation. Listening to George Whitefields sermon, Method of Grace, spoke to me and convicted me .... but it really opened my eyes to my own delusional behavior when it comes to my approach to God. I believe it was Gods way of waking me up... that’s all, simply waking me up. It was then that I started reading and searching — 7 years ago

Look so I know this guy is exuberant and if he got into Tim Keller’s Presbyterian Church, he is being fed from a Calvinist trough. There is no Free will, no Arminian stance. When you hear the word,Pelegian being bandied about, you just know you got a, I got the truth young Calvinist trying to proprigate his brand of salvation theology. So give him time, exercise some patience... he should mellow with time.

 

I have good friends who are free Will devotees, friends that are RC, friends that are Methodist, Presbyterian etc When we sit and discuss these theological issues it is with humility and respect for the others stance... not criticism

 

The pendulum swings, which is one reason why I don't take any ancient writing (outside of Scriptures) as what an author might personally have held throughout their life. Beethoven's earliest tunes were not at all like those of the later years.

Rather, as we all grow in wisdom and understanding, experience that work of living and allowing the Holy Spirit leading, and rejoice in the triumphs while totally and continually grieving over the sinfulness and our own unworthiness, certain modifications are made.

I remember in my youth when I first became aware of the TULIP claims and showed intolerance toward any that were not so enlightened. How foolish I was (am).

It did not take long, though, and I began to be aware that certain points were not accurate with the Scriptures.

Hence, although I embrace the Doctrines of Grace, I must allow such thinking to be conformed to Scriptures.

 

We had that same standard, but also we include another.

Too often one would join our group that thought winning the argument was the goal.

The goal of our little group was learning.


We figured that the standard was the Scriptures, and if the Bible said it, then it was our responsibility to learn, reflect, respond, and conform.

 

This argument fails on a fundamental level. Because it assumes determinist presuppositions which are already in dispute and denied by non-determinists.

You asked in a previous thread what Free Will was....It is one wherein the agent's choices are not determined by either INTERNAL or EXTERNAL necessities.
That's the Calvinist assumption, and one which is fundamentally denied by Arminians/ non-determinists.
It question begs the very thing up for dispute.
Let me explain:
Here you will list numerous preconditions which are sufficient causes for any given "choice":

In your view, this makes perfect sense....man does not have L.F.W. in your thinking and thus all decisions are essentially a calculus of pre-existing conditions, the sum total of which are sufficient to CAUSE the agent to make a specific choice.
But that very question is the one up for dispute and it's what the adherent of L.F.W. denies.

You believe that this line of argument demonstrates an inconsistency in your opponent's thinking.
But it doesn't. It would only be inconsistent if they, like yourselves were determinists.
Your question assumes premises your opponents deny.

There's no trap...
It's only a "trap" for one who assumes that all choices are necessitated by pre-existing states of affairs.
That's precisely what is denied by non-Calvinists and is the very definition of "Free Will" (of the Libertarian sort).

That "thing" isn't a previous state of affairs such as you tend to assume....that "thing" is simply the agent themselves exercising their ability to make a contrary choice, again, not constrained or guaranteed by any internal or external necessity.

That doesn't actually follow.

I don't know about "wise" but, I understand it....
It's simply a false dilemma.
It assumes premises already rejected and which are precisely what is up for debate.

Because I exercised by Libertarian and unconstrained will, to repent and believe and Billy has (to date at least) not done so.

Yes, there are those who exercise their agency to believe and those who do not. There is no "WHY" though, because by "WHY" you mean to say...."What preexisting states of affairs rendered that decision necessary?"
We don't believe that creaturely free decisions are caused in this way....You do.
It is the AGENT THEMSELVES which is the deciding factor, not a preexisting set of conditions.

By choosing.

This argument has been made a gazillion times and in a gazillion forms and it fails on a very fundamental level. I'm sorry but neither you nor poor Sproul have, or ever did have, anything here.
It's a very elementary and BASIC informal logical error. (albeit, I can understand how easy it is to make this error).

This guy explains it quite well:
The Fallacies of Calvinist Apologetics – Fallacy #1: “If we have libertarian free will, what makes us choose one way or the other?”[/QUOTE]

 

Yeah...it's precisely what makes a determinist a determinist...by definition....
And Calvinism is, at it's core deterministic by default, whether you are personally aware of it or not.

 

The worldly standard of "Free will" except among those who are non-conformists, hooligans, and anarchists in both psychology and philosophy has been found to not only be unacceptable, but to be a non-workable definition.

Of course there are those who desire such "free will" but unfortunately for them, it was and cannot be proven to exist.

What has been shown is that all "free will" is conformed by health, mental and emotional state, financial and well being security, sustenance and diet, upbringing, culture expectations, ...


When it comes to the Scripture presentation the terms of either one saved or lost are the conditions.

The one lost (natural man) has freedom of the will shackled by the expectations and conditions of the fallen nature. The viewpoint is that the things and thinking outside of that nature are to be held up for ridicule. Such are conformed to this world and without Christ are not transformed, nor can they transform themselves.

The saved have two wills, that which remains of the old nature, and that which is instilled as part of the new transformed nature.

Because the rest of your post was based upon failed thinking, it remained unnecessary to respond.