Search results

Good discussion. I was about to respond to the OP but after reading HeirofSalvation's response, I don't see the need. He said it very well. If you don't mind I'd like to submit a working definition for free will: If you are like most compatiblists you believe that a choice to act is free if...

So? I was just pointing out that many of you far out Calvin John Calvin and go far beyond the obvious intent of the text to fit your dogma.... But you do ignore the context in which that passage was written: Understanding the historical context and the audience is vital to understanding...

He also happened to hit John Calvin on the head, apparently: "...when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated.” - John Calvin...

:laugh: That is one of the funniest things I've read hear in quite sometime. Thanks for the laugh!

Luke, This is a good discussion and much has been covered thus far. (BTW, I didn't close that thread just in case someone was wondering...I rarely if ever close threads where I'm debating anymore.) Before moving on I think one point needs to be hashed out ... I asked this in another...

As do we all. It's when you assume your view is the scriptural one, that you commit this very basic circular fallacy. We all believe our view is biblical, otherwise we wouldn't believe it. Now argue for your view instead of begging the question... :laugh: Nice cover. I must say, you...

Why? If they are born unable to understand and accept it anyway? It doesn't open blinded eyes UNLESS EFFECTUATED BY THE SPIRIT, according to your view, remember? He blinds their already total blindness? Why? Please answer this question: What was reparable about a non-elect man's blindness...

So, why earlier in our discussions did you also appeal to mystery regarding the origin of evil? By this standard why didn't you just say that God gave Satan the intent to rebel, and Adam the intent to rebel but for a good motive? Also, can you explain how this isn't equal to God' authoring...

Close. Its when you assume your view is the truth when that is the very point up for debate. It is the lowest form of debate and meaningless circular reasoning. I'd rather not partake. Why did you stop quoting on that verse? Keep going... It says, "Pharisees they would not confess their...

Because that is what the Bible teaches. It clearly reveals that God actively "sends a spirit of stupor" and hardens their hearts. That is something scholars on both sides of this debate have affirmed for a very long time and it makes me wonder why you wouldn't. Right, but one has to 'become...

:thumbs: Right on, bro! If you think about it, why did Jesus tell them to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6 without as much as a qualification as to what he really meant by that? Why was he speaking in parables to prevent them from believing and being forgiven? (Mk 4; Matt 13 etc)...

Luke, for the sake of brevity and focus allow me to narrow our discussion to a couple points from your last post. If you want me to specifically address something please don't hesitate to ask, as I'm not attempting to avoid anything, but simply to get to the main issues of our disagreement...

Correct. And in order for that prophecy to be fulfilled God had to blind these people from the clear truth right in front of them. He hardened them, just like he hardened Pharaoh, which is exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11...a passage Calvinists misuse all the time as support...

Icon, I think you missed the point, which is becoming all too typical and thus causing me to suspect your diversions are intentional. I was merely pointing out that any fall off from the popularity of Calvinism must have been according to God's design if Luke's premise is correct, which is...

Who said anything about negating the truth? I'm talking about understanding truth in its proper context. Don't you think knowing that a large majority of his audience in John 6 is being blinded from the secrets of the kingdom for a time, so as to accomplish redemption, while only a few Jews...

You are missing the forrest for the trees. I'm talking about when the gospel was officially sent to the Gentile peoples. You know, "first to the Jew and THEN to the Gentiles..." You know, after Peter had his dream with a white sheet and Paul was called to be "the apostle to the Gentiles." It...

But the apostles (and those close to them) were the only ones he entrusted himself to, right? (John 2:24). The only ones who stuck around at the end of John 6 were his apostles, as (generally speaking) the rest of Israel was being hardened. (John 12:39) That is the reason they 'couldn't...

So, Icon, now you are comparing God's reserving a remnant of Israel to take carry the message of grace to why God would reserves only some believers to the Calvinistic dogma? Really?

Just answer the questions and they will show the context and thus the intent of John 6. You avoid it because it doesn't fit your dogma.

That is beside the point being made. Luke is simply saying that they are proving that they (their people) have been appointed for eternal life...that God has, from the beginning, chosen to 'graft in' other nations besides Israel. They prove that by their faith. I appreciate the greek...