Search results

But don't you know that libertarian free will is just that, an affirmation of both truths (God's sovereignty and man's freedom) while appealing to mystery as to how He accomplishes it? Determinists are the ones attempting an answer where mystery belongs, not us. Suggesting that men can't...

Could you please provide an acceptable definition according to your view? Thank you in advance.

Yes, and? How did I quote that inaccurately? Just as the OP stated, Calvinists appeal to 'second causes' to attempt to explain away the problems of their deterministic circularity, but this says exactly what I argued. God determines/causes it ('unchangeably ordains it'). Tell me, how...

With the exception of Herald, who appears to be denying determinism, no Calvinist here has addressed the points raised by the OP: "Calvinists are actively engaged in rebuking you for doing or believing something that you could not have willingly done or believed otherwise. In other words...

I can't speak for all non-Calvinistic Baptist, obviously, but I find no disagreement with what you have said here. :thumbs: The issue that I'm raising has to do with contra-causal freedom and the ability of free moral agents to CHOOSE between available options...and be held RESPONSIBLE...

Depends on the "Calvinist" you are talking to... The WCF, a renowned and widely accepted confession of those holding to the Reformed doctrine, does speak of God ordaining whatsoever comes to pass. And many, even here on this board, deny the idea of bare permission ("God allows") regarding...

Many here engage with what I like to call "a conflicted Calvinist." They are a conflicted group of people because their angst is really inconsistent with what they claim to believe. They are actively engaged in rebuking you for doing or believing something that you could not have willingly done...

I disagree. If you wrestle with pigs you just get yourself all muddy, but the pig likes it. Speak truth in love and if they still don't accept the truth, there is no reason to lose the love. I wish I could always remember that myself, but alas my pride and arrogance too often forsake me. :(

I agree. The content of one's 'bluntness' certainly is relevant, which was my point. When you are 'frank/blunt/rude' while scolding people for their lack of education (as just one example) you APPEAR to be self-righteous (think you are better) because you are scolding them for speaking with...

Notice that I used words like perception, appear, seems... What you perceive as being frank others very well perceive as rudeness and even self-righteousness. Some do not seem to be aware of how they come across to others in this type of format. Even self-righteous people are often frank...

I have no idea. I haven't been on the forum in a while...

Yes. And when someone is unnecessarily rude to another making it appear he thinks he is better than they are. People tend to appear more rude, abrupt and harsh in an online forum thus giving a greater impression of self-righteousness. You've accused me of thinking I'm better than others...

Yes it is... people are often very unaware of how they come across to others, especially via written forums.

Just a question... So, by this argument are you saying faith is a product of simple applied logic, or a supernatural effectual work of the Holy Spirit?

The logic of natural laws can be violated too. So, while the principle of logic itself may not be violated by a supernatural miracles, like walking on water, it certainly presumes the existence of a Being who is able to carry out such acts. In other words, the violation of natural law is not...

I was listing things we all agree with as in contrast with the one thing we don't so as to show that Luke's parallel doesn't follow. IOW, proving that symbolic imagery isn't literal doesn't prove that God's self revelation isn't true.

Correct. I'm refusing to limit God to a linear cause/effect temporal existence as Luke's perspective does. I appeal to mystery as to how God works out such infinite matters in eternity and refuse to draw conclusions that scripture itself doesn't specifically draw (i.e "if God knew it prior to...

I agree with everything you quoted as well...so I'm not sure as to why you would not need to still 'be on my side?' :confused:

Linear God = Luke's perspective Past<-----------God (present)------------>Future Infinite God = Biblical perspective GOD Past<-----present-----> Future

My contention, as is Augustine's, is that understanding comes from faith, not the other way around. Understanding how a miracles might be possible comes from the belief that there is a God who is able to perform miracles. Belief that God exists and that His Word is true must precede reasoned...