Search results

Not if you paid it back, as a man of intergrity would... :thumbsup:

lol :tongue3: well, I haven't been holding my breath or anything. I just came across this thread in search of a quote and it reminded me that this was never answered...

Aaron, I'm still waiting on your answers from this thread.... :praying:

The author you quoted, like you, are not addressing this phrase- "lest they should be... saved." (as Luke aptly pointed out) And I also find it ironic that a Calvinist is insisting that we have overly individualized a text's meaning, when that is the foundation of our argument against...

I provided Luke's own words for which you to read and respond... I never suggested he was 'afraid' of it, I simply asserted as the text states, that he is speaking in parable so as to keep them from turning and being healed. You keep saying that, but the text doesn't support this assertion...

Awwww, now I'm feeling all verklempt... :laugh:

Well, it appears to me that you have opposed Luke's take...in fact you have 'perished the thought' of it and labeled it 'non-sense,' so I'd like to hear his reply... As to your take on this passage, how do you explain the phrase, "Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So...

I agree, but WHY? That is the real question. Jesus tells us the purpose is to prevent their conversion, which would seem to be an impossibility for an unregenerate man (according to Calvinism). Luke's, conclusion is to insist that the proclamation of these veiled truths could regenerate a...

Sure... I confronted Luke with Mark 4, where it teaches that Jesus spoke in parables to prevent 'those on the outside' from understanding and being converted. I asked him, "If all men are born totally depraved then why would the gospel need to be hidden in parables to prevent these people's...

I can do Calvinistic poetry too: "Roses are Red, violets are blue, God chose me, and forgot about you..." Just kidding, that was actually pretty good Luke! :thumbs:

Tell that to MorseOP and the other Calvinistic posters who have contradicted your line of reasoning. You are getting defensive now which is a clear sign that you have been backed into a corner. You have put yourself into an indefensible spot. I am not claiming that you are not a Calvinist...

Which goes to prove the bigger point of MY ARGUMENT, which is that your view is not consistent with the tenets of Calvinism and yet you still claim to be a Calvinist. Either your view IS consistent with Calvinism or its not. If its not then admit your not a Calvinist and move on... Your view...

I did several times. You dismissed my arguments as being 'emotive' and later by saying, "This is not an argument so I cannot offer a counter point." You said, And you've yet to show how that statement (1) is consistent with Calvinism's view of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace and (2)...

This whole thing can be summed up if we go back to the first page of this discussion. You dismissed this post as 'not being an argument' and you never expounded on what you mean by this, or where this view is supported.

That is not accurate. That is like saying Calvin started all Calvinistic thought. Truth is, prior to Augustine there is no record of any scholarly believer or early church father who supported a Calvinistic interpretation of scripture. Now, while there are various forms of 'non-Calvinistic'...

Well, Calvinists may be claiming Dan 2 for comfort on this disappointing day for our country, but not me. I'm claiming, Psalm 109:8, "May his days be few; may another take his office!" :saint:

I don't 'need' to discredit it, but I do think its lack of historic support does help to reveal that its not a 'creditable' position. Listen, Luke, we have been going around and around about this point for too long. To me its important because its a path God used to bring me out of...

This concept of God working to actively prevent people from hearing and believing the Gospel is the point I'm taking issue with...as so would most Calvinistic scholars IMO. What do you all think?

My point exactly. I look forward to Luke's reply...

But who, if not God Himself, unchangeably decreed this "sinful nature which drives his rebellion?" It just seems like a distinction without a difference unless you can somehow establish a basis on which to rest this view of rebellion as being "his" alone...