Search results

We went over this in another discussion, but once again for those following along... We have talked about the difference between judicial hardening and one growing self-hardened. Many Systematic Theologies have a section explaining this distinction. Men who 'freely choose' to reject God's...

Well I guess that depends on what God has predetermined will happen to that particular thread... OR DOES IT? :laugh:

Willis, You are making the age old mistake of proof texting. Pulling verses from their context to apply them to your particular doctrinal point, regardless of the original intent. Calvinists presume that people have no control over whether they are a sheep or a goat. That men have no say in...

Restating your dogma's talking points while listing the same proof texts over and over is not a debate, its a diatribe. This is a debate forum yet he will not engage in a debate. He presents his interpretations of a particular text then I rebut with questions and arguments that he (and you...

EXACTLY MY POINT!!! It's the Calvinistic doctrine which insists man cannot understand truth, but Paul teaches us otherwise in Romans 1: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since...

Wise approach on your part... When you don't have a case to make pretend your already made it and move on... :smilewinkgrin:

I disagree with your interpretation and application of those proof texts, yes. Again, you are not producing any kind of an argument here. We interpret passages differently, that is a given. But what is a FACT, is that you have yet to produce one verse that even mentions the word 'gospel'...

The point is that you have to ASSUME that. You are assuming their inability to willingly respond to GOD'S APPEAL! The Prodigal son was said to be 'dead and now alive,' yet the son is the one who 'came to himself' and decided to humble himself enough to return home and beg for forgiveness...

With all due respect, you don't appear to be addressing my arguments... Able to do what? Submit to God's law or trust in the one who fulfilled the law for us? You seem to assume the former proves the latter, but provide NOTHING to back up your assumptions. Understand what? The 'deep things...

Well, for one we are debating whether or not God actually did this, so to speculate as to why or why He might not do it is very much in question. If it makes no sense for God to do this, or if it appears to go against his nature somehow, then this makes for a strong case against such...

I'd be interested to know if Luke agrees with you on this point.

It is called an analogy, and it is often used in discussion to make a point. Why avoid addressing that point? Your proof text has been answered and properly explained in its context at least as many times as it has been quoted. No one here disagrees that the 'deep things of the spirit of God'...

No one. :confused:

Deaf by whose design? Is the gospel just not powerful enough of an appeal to enable a response, or is man born unable to willingly respond due to God's decree to seal all men over to a totally depraved nature due to Adam's sin? I agree totally, thus when the gospel is preached no one should...

Any responses? I'm attempting to find out the mind set which leads some to conclude that the gospel, a gracious work of the Spirit, could be proclaimed and rejected and then deemed as NOT being a gracious work of the Spirit on the basis that it was rejected.

Luke, in the other thread (which got shut down), you affirmed that God himself appeals to the sinner to repent while at the same time decreeing him unable to respond to that appeal, while still holding him responsible. That doesn't strike you as an untenable position?

Because they are corpses and they wouldn't know the difference. I think that is common sense and why we don't see anyone torturing dead bodies as a means of punishment. Because dead corpses are not able to give an account, the very meaning of the word "ACCOUNT-ABLE" I think He cares about...

Yet, the brethren who were living on the milk, not the meat weren't able to accept these things either, thus proving he isn't addressing man's ability to respond willingly to the gospel (which btw, is 'appraised' or 'discerned' by the spirit when the apostles discerned it for us and wrote it...

Funny that not one of your proof texts even mentions man's inability to believe. It talks about not submitting to God law (Rm 8), but somehow you apply that to your belief that man isn't able to trust in Christ who fulfills the law. It talks about man's inability to understand the deep...

If you wrote a book and it was read by someone who disagreed with what you wrote, would that mean the book wasn't your work? If the gospel, which was wrought by the Holy Spirit, is rejected by it's hearers should we conclude that it's being proclaimed isn't a work of the Holy Spirit? Is...