Search results

Don't have time for a lengthy response at the moment but I had to point out the irony of the 'Calvinistic' believer arguing for a universal application based upon the use of these words when in other contexts that don't suit their purposes they are quick to apply them in a much more limited...

Again, not my argument. I don't believe it is only SOME, thus proving you have yet to understand my argument... Sorry, but I can't debate with someone who hasn't yet understood my perspective enough so as to engage it. One, our last conversation ended because the thread was closed by an...

Early in the same gospel the writer contradicts you, "He came to his own people, and even they rejected him." (John 1:11) He first is brought to the JEW and then the Gentile. Remember it is not until Paul is converted and Peter has his white sheet dream (after Christ is raised) that the gospel...

Biblicist, You apply this passage as if it is addressing mankind's ability to believe in Christ in any and all contexts. That is a textbook example of the fallacy of 'proof texting.' You MUST look at the CONTEXT. Who was being granted/given to come to the Incarnate God in flesh? Who was...

When I was a Calvinist I too hated the idea of hyperism, however if I was completely honest there were times I remember not continuing to pursue or 'go that extra mile' to reach someone because I figured that if God wanted them they would come around eventually anyway. It gave me the excuse I...

Well, we know God sends his appeal to be reconciled to all creatures, thus to come to this conclusion you would have to presume that the gospel appeal is not a 'call' of God to faith and repentance, which is a stretch in my mind. I know you believe in a separate effectual calling, but I'm only...

It's strange that the Reformed brethren often reference this quote when in the very parable to which it refers the choice is conditioned upon the clothing of the guest. Hardly seems to support their assertions of unconditional election.

Good question.

I'm sorry, but I read through this no less than four times and I'm simply not following you. I have no idea how that answers the 'otherwise they might see, hear, understand and believe' claim, or Paul's contrasting of the Jewish condition with the Gentiles condition. Are you suggesting that...

Calvinists argue that the non-Calvinistic view robs God of glory because man's response (acceptance of the gift) is required for the gift to be applied. My rebuttal to that argument is that God gets full credit for the gift (provision) whether or not man accepts it. In other words, no glory is...

I was reading along in agreement and then this last sentence slaps me... None of what you are writing here is even a point of contention. We all know the Jews thought their truth was truth. We all know they saw things wrong but thought they knew it all. We all agree with this part. What...

You have a blessed day as well brother! I was a Calvinist so I'm aware of this. But I'd like you to objectively consider two points: 1. Why do Calvinists insist that a gift be irresistibly given in order for the giver to get full credit for giving it? 2. Why do you believe new life...

I agree with all this...this is not our point of contention. The Jews believe lies but they think they are truth, so they see without really seeing. We agree here. Got it, and they wouldn't have done that whether Christ used parables or not? Remember that was my original question.... I was...

I understand that distinction, but it is a distinction without a difference for what is the point in even saying this except to attempt to subtly invoke some kind of sense of culpability on the part of the human agent because it is HIS unwillingness that gets him into this mess? What use is it...

Okay, now this is a GREAT point of discussion. You have stated this very well. First, on what basis does man's ability to turn to God for help make him 'better' or 'more deserving?' Think about it. He is admitting his weakness and asking for help. By the world's standard that isn't...

What doctrinal views actually exalt the nature of fallen man? Most seem to think that those of us who affirm man's free will (responsibility) exalt the nature of man. They argue that because mankind is born unable to respond that somehow means he is worse and if he is able to respond that...

Why does accepting that all men become fallen in Adam necessarily imply that all men become unable to get back up when given the opportunity by God Himself to be reconciled from that fall? Plus, that quote of mine was asking about MY responsibility as a born again believer in accepting the...

That is all beside the point...we are specifically addressing the reason you think some born again believers accept your view of divine election and why some do not, period. You answered that by agreeing with option 3 and admitting that for some reason God has not granted all of his children...

That's all that needed to be said. You believe, as I presumed from the beginning of this rabbit trail, that God (for whatever reason) has granted the 'truth' of Calvinism (reformed theology) to some of his Children, while leaving the others to believe a false view. Have you ever considered why...

Actually, that was in reference to believers being able to accept the doctrinal views regarding election that you hold to...'enlightened' etc. There really is only three options: 1. All true believers will come to believe as you do (or they aren't true believers) 2. God gives all...