Search results

Or, by that same logic, would not have been able to be tempted in any way whatsoever...let alone like as we are, in direct contradiction to the Scriptures. Your argument proves too much.

What I meant by the question was whether the "Temptation" attested in the wilderness was the only time Christ suffered temptation...(which I cannot relate to in any way and were unique to Christ) in lieu of living daily with the same temptations and struggles that we do. Satan has never offered...

According to the only evidence the Scriptures give, it was to be a sign...whereby the faithful could recognize their Messiah. Isa. 7: 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. The idea that it was to...

That he was "UNABLE" to sin is nowhere clearly taught or "proved". You can believe that, but, I would argue then his "temptation" is not in any meaningful sense like ours. I think there are a few reasons.... Who (according to the gospels) "drove him into the wilderness to be tempted of Satan?"...

I find the insights of "Spirit Christology" * to be of value. I have only begun scratching the surface yet, but it helps us avoid the schizophrenic Jesus often portrayed by some Christology: Man, but not really....God of course, but in all ways tempted as a man....except not really really...

AHA.....Now, you are actually making an argument from your own thoughts... I appreciate that. I really appreciate your willingness to engage here. Yeah, I thought so....but, forgiven. If I said that human beings made in the image of God aren't computers and don't have Operating Systems... How...

I never used the word "self"... and there's no reason for you to use that as short-hand. I said in the L.F. W. schema the agent (that would be the person or the actor) are themselves the "cause". They cause it, they "choose" it. They are endowed by God with the power of self-determination and...

False... I can quote myself insisting that all choices are caused. I said all choices are caused... I'll quote myself: That was me... Insisting like any sane person would that choices are caused.....three times...in exactly as many independent clauses in case any Calvinist missed it...

I said quite a lot. That syllogism fails on the most basic level. I assume you find it meaningful in some way I can't possibly conceive... but it is illogical, it fails basic Philosophical and logical distinctions and frankly, it makes absolutely no sense. It is convoluted and unintelligible...

OH... He was "wrong" on every conceivable possible level. That is absolutely one of the most convoluted and pathetic syllogisms I have ever seen in my life... That was horrific. Truly horrific. It floors me that you took that caucophony of random words thrown together as a serious argument. I...

This syllogism is egregiously bad. Truly, it's really not serious at all. line by line then: Sure....of course, anything that isn't necessary is contingent. Choices are, by definition, contingent. fair enough. Everything is either caused or uncaused. This is the one premise he gets right...

YUPP!!!! Greear is awesome, a treasure-trove of wisdom in the S.B.C....specifically as it relates to Church Revitalization. and yes...he's a Calvinist.

Brian........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... If you don't want them to...

Nor mine... I was simply guessing that while we would both agree that there is such a thing as the noetic effects of sin..... My guess was...you would tend towards extending its effects farther than I would. I make no comment on who would be more correct. It was merely a guess...and...

O.K... I was just making a passing observation, but, if you think on it....that knife could cut both ways. It's arguably as easy to think that whatever might drive a man naturally towards a non-Calvinist view, could drive one more towards a Calvinistic one... There are, after all fatalistic...

Meh, yeah... Crush you. There are many possible alternatives which have at least the benefit of internal logical consistency and some level of Biblical support... Did you throw him for a loop? NO. Yes. Not that much really, some.....but there are limits. Not to speak for T.C.... But, he...

No...I didn't. But. the verse, and your point is irrelevant. [Harassment edited]

Dude... Quit while you're behind... T.Cassidy will absolutely CRUSH you on this... Those terms you threw out???? Yeah, he knows them....You are out of your league son. Completely out of your league... I don't have the verbal skills to describe how COMPLETELY out of your league you are.... As...

That's exactly what you did. Calvinists regularly do this. You don't even NEED to... The case for Calvinism is actually much stronger than this. I wish you understood the case well enough to realize that you can abandon that line of argument wholesale because the case for Calvinism is MUCH...

No, that's absolutely, positively, without question NOT THE POINT. Calvinists are arguing that someone who is (physically) dead cannot "hear" or "see" etc... etc... That's the analogy... They want to equate that with "Spiritual" death..and therefore argue that regeneration is necessary for a...