Search results

My question was meant to merely be a restatement of your position. It presumed no inadequacies...stated or implied.

That is because I'm interested in the consequences of sin upon mankind as it relates to God's sovereignty. If you don't wish to discuss that I will understand. So, you believe labor pain, like hell, is punishment for the fall. Is the fallen condition of total inability to willingly respond...

But is God in control over the consequences that sin has on mankind? For example, labor pains are said to be a direct result of the fall. Did God have any control over that? Could God have made it so women do not have labor pains, or is that beyond His control?

With regard to slavery or their soteriology?

So your answer is not to deny the substance of the objection or even attempt to reconcile the apparent contradiction, but instead to simply appeal to Paul's response under the presumption that it was originally intended to answer the same type of objection that I'm raising today, correct?

Do you affirm bare permission, or do you believe as some Calvinists that God is permitting that which He ultimately determines?

So, the Israelites being temporarily hardened in their rebellion so as to accomplish redemption for the world is now being equated with the Calvinistic campaign against Arminianism?

Jesus also taught: 32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." 33 He said this to show by what kind of death he was going to die. 34 So the crowd answered him, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ remains forever. How can you say that the Son of Man...

I'm not denying any of these points for this argument. I am presuming Calvinism's claims are true...that Arminian teaching is 'sin' and 'falls short of God's glory' and that it 'steals God's glory.' In turn, I am contrasting that with the Calvinistic teaching regarding God unchangeably...

So, if my error is something God unchangeably ordained for the sake of his greatest eternal glory then you can only claim that our doctrine temporally steals God's glory, but ULTIMATELY is purposed for his greater eternal glory. Why are you fighting against that which is purposed for his...

Ok, so when Calvinists accuse non-Calvinists of stealing his glory, you really mean that we are ATTEMPTING to steal his glory, but in reality we are actually bringing God MORE glory because He is the one who unchangeably ordained us to be non-Calvinists for his greatest glory? Glad to hear we...

Calvinists teach that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass for His greatest glory... John Calvin wrote, "Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which...

The SBC was wrong about slavery in its beginning and we made the necessary adjustments to correct our mistakes. I'd argue that we made some of the same strides in our soteriology. While I will concede the fact that many of the leaders during the SBC founding were more Calvinistic than...

1. God tells us to invite all to come, thus implying all can, thus any teaching that suggests otherwise only undermines the clear intent of that initial invitation. 2. If Calvinism is right then no amount of Arminianism will detract from the number of those saved. 3. If "Arminianism" is...

Make light of it? What are you talking about? If I was 'making light of it,' I might make a joke or ignore it altogether. Instead I wrote out a very coherent reasonable explanation of our interpretation regarding this passage. I then follow that explanation with a honest question in...

Again, this is simply of case of reading one's view INTO a text, as it never suggests that God's working in this instance is effectual. We both agree that God works to help us follow him. He provokes men with envy (Rm 11:14), which is an example of God working in lost men to help them will and...

I did respond to your line of reasoning. You are equating sin with the consequences of sin, as if God has no control over whether or not mankind is enabled to respond to His revelation or not. Even if I were to except that the natural essence of sin is total inability to willingly respond...

This is just strange... P4T said, "Correct, and as we can see on BB the anti-cals and arminians believe man must enable God to save them, but when we speak of God enabling man to believe they hiss and spit at such a thought." 1. It is one thing to claim God enables us to respond. (i.e. "How...

The other thread was closed for whatever reason, so I didn't have opportunity to reply to this response from Luke and others: First my original Quote: Well, that depends on how you define RESPOND. If it is seen as a genuine, reaction, or reply of one agent in RESPONSE to the action or...

Actually some determinists do believe God determined Adam's choice to sin in the same manner he determined your choice to come to Christ...in the same 'compatibilistic manner' (i.e. acting in accordance with ones desire, yet that desire is determine ultimately by God who creates/controls the...