Search results

No, its to show why I believe Calvinists are more humanistic than we are....a valid point considering the OP title and subject matter. Plus, its not as if I'm avoiding any other point you have argued, brother. So, I see no validity to this accusation. (what points am I not answering exactly?)

Even the demons believe. Its what you do with the faith that is granted. Faith is granted in the sense that the 'HEARING' is granted...as faith comes by hearing. They can't come unless they are invited and if you invite someone then you are GRANTING them the ability to come. Same thing here...

Calvinism has a higher view of humanity than we do. Calvinism: Believes humans hate a God who hates them first. Non-Cal: Believes humans hate a God who loves them first. Which is worse? Calvinism: Believes humans reject God because they were born unable to do otherwise by their innate...

I'm not addressing your position. I'm addressing your assessment of my position. Then forget about the biblical use of this analogy. Just take it as an independent, stand alone analogy...as if I just made it up myself. It still reveals the point I'm attempting to make. The return of an evil...

Even Calvinists quote passages which speak of God 'granting' men faith. That is the same word. It is 'enabling' or 'allowing.' And every biblical lexicon I've looked at allows for 'drawing' to be understood in the same sense. I know, I know you disagree with them (surprise, surprise), but...

That assumes (1) that this is not the way God wanted it and (2) that God owed it to believers to save them. That is tantamount to arguing that (1) the prodigal son's humiliating return home was the apex of his father's gracious reception and (2) that the father owed it to the son to forgive him...

First, allow me to thank you for attempting to restate my position and show that you understand me before engaging in debate. That is refreshing. Kind of... I'm saying the immediate situation helps to understand the intent of the authors. I'm not denying the universal principles contained in...

FINALLY! So, if God was ABLE to grant this and chose not to then clearly he is responsible for the decision to leave men in their disabled condition from birth. That is what I've been arguing all along. He decided the totally disabled condition of the fallen nature by NOT choosing to enable...

That is simply untrue. The freedom is from OUTSIDE determination. Really you could call my believe 'self-determinism' because I believe a chooser is the determiner of his choices. You (compatiblists) believe men are controlled by their desires, which are controlled by their nature which...

No. Only one log in name is permitted and I've never gone by another name on this forum.

I'm not an "Arminian Finneyist" and I do believe in regeneration. If you think that is the only alternative to "Calvinism" may I suggest some reading material for further study?

You've answered my question. You MUST believe that God is not omnipotent in order to consistently hold to your position. I'm not saying you deny omnipotence...I know you don't. I'm saying to be consistent you'd have to deny omnipotence because you have continually argued on this thread and...

I understand the confusion surrounding the word 'draws,' but I also think much clarity can be brought to the intent of Jesus by looking at the context of what is happening in John 6. Calvinists like to quote Jesus saying, "39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing...

No one in this debate is attempting to suggest that mankind regenerates themselves.

No, but can he cuss at that phone, kick it off onto the floor and walk away from the phone either? All analogies fall short and Arminians aren't attempting to claim men make the call, we are only attempting to clam we are response-able to answer it when it comes.

It's not an either/or but a both/and answer. It's not either the Gospel OR the Holy Spirit. It's both/and. The Holy Spirits means to enable and appeal for the world to be reconciled IS the gospel. The Holy Spirit inspired its writing, preserved it over the generations, and still indwells...

lol either way, I like you...very reasonable.... and funny. :smilewinkgrin:

I'm well of that nuance, which is why I typically say 'willingly respond.' John 6 references being 'enabled' thus I see no reason not to stick with that terminology. Either we are enabled to come to Christ or we're not. The audience in John 6 was not entrusted to Christ because they were...

I believe man is responsible...meaning 'able to respond.' Man is responding to God's gracious provision, through his Son and the powerful appeal of the gospel. That is why we are RESPONSIBLE (able to respond). Look at it this way. It was the choice of the Prodigal to return home and beg...

That may be your view of the issue, but we are talking about what is POSSIBLE, because you seem to be denying even the possibility of God to enable man to freely respond... You seem to think effectual regeneration was the ONLY option for God to handle the 'natural condition' of fallen man. Is...