Search results

Hey, that was a quote from Spurgeon, who is not living anymore, so you will have to correct him when you get to heaven on his inability to quote the text properly. :laugh:

The point was made in the rest of my post that you failed to answer... Here I'll copy and paste it for you: If what you claim is true your sentence should read, "God changes His will for the man however He pleases." Man doesn't have a will in your system...he has a instinctive reflexive...

But Luke that statement itself presupposes that man has a will of his own!!!!! Don't you see it? If what you claim is true your sentence should read, "God changes His will for the man however He pleases." Man doesn't have a will in your system...he has a instinctive reflexive response maybe...

In your system they may not, but remember you asked about our system? This is an example of God's CHOOSING to send a powerful, enabling appeal to two groups of people...the Jews and then the Gentiles. That is a view of election, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can continue to restate...

I've clarified my position on this point countless times, but instead of dealing with what I have stated you continue to misrepresent me. I explained to you my both/and (not either/or) position in post 102 You responded by claiming that I deny that the master/servant roll... I...

What do the means actually accomplish though? Changing God's determination of what the man will choose? Is God putting on a show just to make it appear the circumstance was necessary to convince his will, because if what you believe is true then the Fish isn't necessary. God simply decrees...

As opposed to God's secret will, which was that Jonah would NOT desire to obey, right? If God is sovereign over the will of man then he is sovereign over the wrong choices as well as the right ones in your system, right? And why would you suppose that is necessary given that God controls the...

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost...

Translation: I cannot answer his honest question without revealing the weakness of my objection, so I'll pretend to take the high road and be the one to just "drop it".... Translation continued: ...but not before going back to the low road and taking one last stab on my way out the door...

Actually, it is meant to point out the PURPOSE of the outward means. What does spending 3 days in the belly of fish accomplish that wasn't accomplished by God's already sovereign will over Jonah's desires? What was God provoking by use of these means if man's will is not a factor and God is...

And??????????

I think I explained that position very clearly back on post 50, and you neglected to engage with that point... Where did anyone say they understood what you meant by your comment, "No I don't agree but neither do I find that statement all that problematic." You don't agree...YET...You don't...

Given that you failed to respond to a majority of my last post...most of which already rebuts your reply...I'll simply allow it to stand as is....

Whoa wait a second...mine? I was referring to Paul's actual quote: "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (Rom 1:16) in reference to the powerful gospel being sent by God. I believe, as Paul clearly stated, that God ELECTED to send the message appealing for reconciliation (the gospel)...

A question for our Calvinistic brethren: Why do you suppose God would use outward "normative" means, like a storm and a big fish, to convince Jonah, a believer, to change his will; all the while using irresistible, inward, supernatural means to convince Jonah's sinful audience to change their...

Quote where I did so and let's discuss rationally like adults, okay? If you recall, you plucked my 'friend of God' comment out of its context, which was about female submission and Christ's headship being more in line with one who treats those he leads as 'friends' rather than 'slaves.' I'm...

Nothing? Okay...

Nothing? Okay...

I have no idea what that means. Sorry. But you do understand that we don't believe in a 'individual election to salvation,' right? That doesn't mean we don't believe in election and even in 'election to salvation.' It just means that we reject your view of 'unconditioned/effectual individual...

He is addressing apostles. That itself speaks to the "audience," which is one of primary considerations in establishing the context of the passage and thus a proper hermeneutic. You cannot conclusively claim that the context is not about apostleship when the audience is made up only of...