Search results

I wouldn't say 'ignored,' I would say that you are willing to apply certain 'hermeneutical' considerations to one passage to fit your system, but not the other. Responsibility for a believer in the Calvinistic system is just a "predetermined" as the responsibility of a non-believer, so your...

If determinists believed in the HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY of believers then this defense might actually help your case...

Oh, so you are saying the context surrounding that passage matters? And that we should look to other texts to help us understand the intent of the author? Funny how you are willing to do that with my proof text, but not your own. Calvinists are notorious for negating man's responsibility...

P4T, I don't expect you to actually "hear" this because you've clearly stopped even attempting to understand my post a long time ago...but for those who may be reading along.... This is what is known as the question begging fallacy because it presumes true the very point up for debate. P4T is...

Jesus also said that you must hate your parents in order to follow Him, but scripture also teaches to love and honor our parents. Is God contradicting himself? God said he hated Esau, but tells us else where that he loves all men and even instructs us to love our enemies and to do good to those...

Paul writes this in 2 Tim 2: "In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master...

Question beg much? One day I pray the light switch flips and you can at least see this from our perspective. Having been a Calvinist I know HOW you see that verse, but believe me when I say it is soooo much clearer now from this perspective. You may not be able to see it because you have...

You do have a lot of bulk in your posts at times, and like you sometimes I try to sum it up in a quote or two in order to keep each post manageable. Plus, we have like 6 posts going on at the same time and some of the issues have already been addressed. If I skip something, just do what I do to...

Wow, do you guys have a decoder ring or something to keep all that stuff straight? :smilewinkgrin:

That is very honorable. I will try to do better too. :jesus:

I didn't say his audience was only Jews. I said that the people who would have been saying, "Why did you make me like this?" would have been the Jews who are being hardened, cut off and stumbling...those he speaks of just a couple verse latter when he summarized the passage: " What then...

Rom. 11:32

Remember what I told you about how to spot the question begging fallacy? If I could simply say the same thing back to you as a rebuttal, then its not worth saying. Its like two kids saying, "nuh, huh," and "huh, huh," back and forth. Its circular and the lowest form of debate. It is also...

If you aren't even going to give me enough respect to EVER restate or in any way reflect what I've said in a coherent or respectable manner then I'm not going to continue to attempt to do that for you. I have serious doubts you read much past the word 'stand' because you were too anxious to get...

I'm not sure where MacArthur stands on this point as many from the Princeton tradition (C. Hodge, Dabney, Shedd) of the reformed faith, don't support the typical 'limited atonement' perspective. If John were here and said what you did, I'd ask him the same question. You said, "Nothing...

If I sacrificed my child for them, sent them countless messengers making an appeal for them to be reconciled, I don't see why their will might not be provoked to reconsider. Is that your only rebuttal? You suppose a person who hates me couldn't be reconciled to me, despite MY pettily little...

So, do you believe it's an offer of salvation intended for all or not? So, do you consider yourself a four pointer? I ask because this is typically the reasoning of those who deny limited atonement.

I still think this part is worthy of response, because it dispels the misnomer that Calvinism somehow has a better doctrine of sin and lower view of man than we do...

I understand, but you still don't seem to follow the fault of your own logic. I'll repost it for you: 1. Man cannot keep every demand of the law 2. Therefore man cannot keep any demands of the law 3. If man cannot keep any demands of the law then he cannot keep any demand at all. Now...

Do you believe God, if He so chose, could make people enabled to respond to his revelations? IF no, why not? If yes, then you cannot deny that God is the one who decided that men, as a result of the fall, would not be enabled to respond to his revelations.